[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXPOSING THE TRUTH ON LNG:
HOW THE ADMINISTRATION PLAYED
POLITICS WITH AMERICA'S
ENERGY FUTURE
=======================================================================
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
__________
DECEMBER 4, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-138
__________
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
57-718 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
Billy Grant, Professional Staff Member
Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
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 December 4, 2024................................. 1
Witnesses
----------
Brad Crabtree, Assistant Secretary, Office of Fossil Energy and
Carbon
Management, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement................................................... 5
John Podesta, Senior Advisor to the President for International
Climate
Policy, The White House
(Invited)........................................................ 0
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
----------
* Article, Reuters, ``Biden's Oil Boom''; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
* Article, Free Beacon, ``Podesta Behind Biden's Decision To
Pause Natural Gas Exports''; submitted by Rep. Fallon.
* Report, ACS, ``Improved Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of
LNG Exports through Enhanced Supply Chain Resolution'';
submitted by Rep. Fallon.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
EXPOSING THE TRUTH ON LNG:
HOW THE ADMINISTRATION PLAYED
POLITICS WITH AMERICA'S
ENERGY FUTURE
----------
Wednesday, December 4, 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 2:30 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fallon, Perry, Boebert, Fry,
Brown, Stansbury, and Norton.
Also present: Representatives Higgins and Pfluger.
Mr. Fallon. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to
order. I want to welcome everyone for joining us.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today we are here, once again, to examine the Biden-Harris
Administration's decision to effectively ban liquefied natural
gas, or LNG, exports to non-free trade agreement countries.
On January 26 this year, the Administration announced that
it would be pausing pending decisions on export permitting for
LNG to non-FTA countries. This surprise decision was yet
another example of this Administration's efforts to kill
American independence and American energy independence. Let us
make no mistake about it, this is an effective ban. One
person's ban is another person's pause. But this Committee has
been conducting oversight to understand what led to the
Administration's decision.
Unfortunately, the Administration has refused to be
transparent. On April 18 of this year, the Subcommittee held a
hearing with Assistant Secretary Brad Crabtree. At our hearing,
Mr. Crabtree testified that the new department analysis to
evaluate whether additional exports were in the public interest
was, and I quote, well underway, unquote.
A few weeks later, on May 23, Secretary Granholm appeared
before our Full Committee. The Secretary assured the Committee
that the study would be completed and the ban would be lifted
during the first quarter of 2025. Since the ban was instituted,
energy companies investing in new LNG export projects have
struggled to navigate an uncertain future, because what they
are looking for, as any business is looking for, is certainty
and stability so they can invest and create, incidentally,
high-paying American jobs.
The holding pattern imposed by the ban has led to a
significant number of project delays, high regulatory and legal
costs, and a great deal of uncertainty for the workforces and
the communities supporting these large scale, capital-intensive
projects. Research by the National Association of Manufacturers
found that nearly one million jobs would be in jeopardy over
the next two decades should the ban remain the place.
So, how did we get here? And who was really responsible for
the decision? The motivations appear to be entirely political,
and that is very unfortunate. Reports indicate that, before the
ban, the White House met with activists and TikTok
influencers--not making that up--who were adamant that the
Administration take radical steps to address climate change and
eliminate fossil fuels.
John Podesta, the Senior Advisor to the President for
International Climate Policy, engaged in these meetings,
calling into question what information the Administration
relied upon to impose the export ban and risk the ban's
significant economic and national security implications.
Ongoing FOIA litigation led to an organization called
Government Accountability and Oversight sought to uncover
information supplied to the Department of Energy headquarters
before the January 1924 decision. And as it turns out, there
may have already been a 2023 study in existence that the
Department kept under wraps and is still fighting to withhold.
It appears possible that when the information the
Department had did not fit the narrative pushed by the White
House, that information was buried in an attempt to clear the
way for a more politically favorable analysis. This
Administration has been steadfast in its efforts to cripple
American independence. And hiding inconvenient facts from the
public to support radical activists is yet another example of
these efforts.
The U.S. LNG exports are crucial, not only to American
independence, but also amidst the fragile geopolitical
environment. From the Israel-Hamas war to the Russian invasion
of Ukraine, to the growing threats posed by an ever-aggressive
China, countries across the world have heightened awareness of
their own energy reliance. The U.S. plays a significant role in
helping these countries meet their future energy demand.
Withholding our LNG potential simply to appease climate
extremists fails, not only to help our allies, it does not help
our citizens here at home either and who, incidentally, work
tirelessly to keep the power on, not only in this country but
around the world.
The incoming Trump Administration should reverse course on
these short-sighted actions and usher in a new era of U.S.
energy leadership. Reports show that President-elect Trump
plans to lift the Biden-Harris LNG export ban and increase
American energy production early in his Administration. I am
concerned, however, about the reports that the Biden-Harris
administration is rushing to complete its final study and skew
the record before the incoming Trump Administration can undo
the damage already done.
I want to thank Mr. Crabtree for appearing to testify here
today. Senior Advisor to the President John Podesta declined to
participate in today's hearing despite our invitation. And
there is a chair for him. If he is watching, he is welcome to
come any time. We would love to have him. This is unfortunate
that--his absence--considering the many questions that this
Committee believes he could help answer.
I urge the White House to preserve their records and ensure
them that we will be obtaining the information we seek one way
or another, particularly after the 20th of January.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for purposes of making
an opening statement.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone. I
am grateful for the opportunity to be here. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you to our Assistant Secretary for being here
with us today.
As was mentioned, this is a rehash of a topic that we have
already covered in this Subcommittee and, in fact, we have
already had two hearings on gas stoves, two hearings on how the
government has forced electric vehicles, and now a second
hearing on this 1-year pause reviewing applications for LNG
exports.
And this is a politically manufactured nonissue. This is
actually not a ban. This is about using the best available
economic analysis and science to understand how LNG exports
affect American consumer markets, how they affect the price of
oil and gas here in the United States, how they affect prices
for consumers here in the United States. And in light of supply
and demand issues, especially with foreign wars, with
constraints on gas exports in other countries, and other
impacts including climate change and social justice and
environmental impacts, what the implications are for expanding
our capacity.
I think any good business would want a good, sound economic
analysis. And if the United States is a business, as we know it
is, it is in the business of making sure that the American
taxpayers get a good return on any investment that we make or
any sale that we get from American resources, then it is who of
us to do our due diligence to make sure that the energy that is
being produced here in the United States, the infrastructure
that the United States is investing in and the places in which
that infrastructure goes, does not have an undue impact on our
economy, on American families, on oil and gas prices, and on
the environment and the global climate crisis. And that is
really what this all comes down to.
So, this is about modernizing and understanding the state
of play, especially after we have come out of a historic
pandemic and global disturbances in international gas markets
and to understand what is going on, which seems pretty
reasonable. But oftentimes, you know, in this Committee, things
get spun in a way that sounds like there is some vast
conspiracy theory. And I think it is important to just be real
with the American people. You know, we are literally 2 weeks
out from adjourning for the holidays.
On January 20 we will have a new Administration. They have
made very clear--it was just stated in the opening statement--
that their intention is to vastly expand LNG exports. And that
has nothing to do with American energy security. That has
everything to do with expanding opportunities to sell American
oil and gas overseas so that American companies can profit from
the pumping that they are doing here in the United States.
We are energy secure. And, in fact, as somebody who also
comes from an oil and gas state, we have amongst the highest
oil and gas pumping that we have ever seen in American history
right now, in fact just in our backyard. So, this is not about
energy security.
And, you know, before I came to Congress, I was actually a
staffer on the Senate Energy Committee, and I marveled often as
a staffer when we would see these industry-led hearings come
before the Committee and you always wonder, what are the
conversations that were had with industry before they decided
to hold hearings like this. Because it is clearly in the
service of creating a Congressional Record so that when the
Trump Administration comes in, there is some legal and possibly
congressional teeth to whatever fight these private companies
are hoping to take on.
So, I think it is important to be clear-eyed about what
this hearing actually is and pull back the curtain a little bit
and to also be clear about what it is that we are actually
talking about. This is not a ban. The Department of Energy is
updating their data and analysis, working with experts from our
national laboratories, and it is an important part of the
process for looking at additional permit applications and this
is just part of doing business and being a responsible
business.
And so, this is a bit of a witch hunt, especially in the
final days of this Congress and of the Administration. I think
it is really important that we have the Assistant Secretary
here today to talk about what the Biden Administration has done
to address American energy security. And, in fact, we have
amongst the highest energy security we have ever had in
American history and, you know, prices are going down,
manufacturing is going up, jobs are going up. And we are having
a renaissance here in the United States in domestic production
in manufacturing.
And so, I think it would be a dang shame to see it get
dismantled in the coming months, because we know that it is
stimulating economic opportunity, it is creating thousands of
jobs, it is helping millions of Americans, it is bringing down
costs. And this is really about trying to pump up profits for
private corporations, not about caring for the people of this
country.
So, I look forward to hearing from the Assistant Secretary.
I applaud the Department of Energy's efforts to create a fact-
based policy document that we can use to help plan for our
industry exports and to understand the economic and
environmental implications of what we do as we are, as a
country, figuring out how we want to handle this industry and
its implications.
So, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
Today we are joined by Mr. Brad Crabtree who serves as the
Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office
of Fossil Fuel and Carbon Management.
Mr. Crabtree previously testified before this Subcommittee
in April of this year. We also invited the Senior Advisor to
the President for International Climate Policy, John Podesta,
who declined the Committee's invitation to participate.
I want to thank you, Mr. Crabtree, for your willingness to
join us here today. As you can see, we only have 50 percent
success rate. So, I am glad you are here.
Without objection, Representative Higgins of Louisiana and
Representative Pfluger from Texas are waived on to the
Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witness at
today's hearing.
Pursuant to Committee rule 9(g), the witness will please
stand and raise his right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Crabtree. I do.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. You may sit.
Let the record show that the witness answered in the
affirmative.
We appreciate, sir, you being here today and look forward
to hearing your testimony. Let me remind the witness that we
have read your written statement; it will appear in full in the
hearing record. Please limit your oral comments to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button, you know the drill.
And 4 minutes of green, 1 minute of yellow, and then red, if
you could wrap it up.
I now recognize Mr. Crabtree for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRAD CRABTREE
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY AND CARBON MANAGEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is good to see
you again. And, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stansbury, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to
testify before the Subcommittee.
I look forward to discussing the Department of Energy's
updates to the analyses that underpin our decisions on
exports--on applications to export liquefied natural gas to
non-free trade agreement countries.
Let me begin by emphasizing that there has never been a ban
on LNG exports. The U.S. is the No. 1 exporter of LNG worldwide
and of natural gas, and DOE has authorized every operating
project, every project under construction, and a number of
additional projects to export U.S. natural gas as LNG to those
countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement.
Current exports reached a new high this year, averaging
over 12 billion cubic feet per day, and exports are expected to
reach 14 billion cubic feet per day next year as new projects
come online. Once all authorized projects currently under
construction do come online, our export capacity is set to
reach over 26 billion cubic feet per day. That is more than
double our current export level. What this means is that by
just 2030, half a decade, U.S. export capacity will exceed any
other country by over 40 percent, and that takes all announced
global capacity additions in other countries into account.
Our total level of non-FTA exports already authorized goes
well beyond these numbers; another 22 billion cubic feet of
export capacity authorized but not yet having reached the
financial investment decision. In short, the program I lead has
authorized over 48 billion cubic feet in exports to non-FTA
countries, four times our actual current LNG export levels and
nearly 45 percent of our current domestic natural gas
production. By any measure, our export posture is strong and
will grow dramatically during the remainder of this decade
regardless of future export approvals.
With that context in mind, DOE needs to fully understand
how additional authorized exports could impact our economy,
community, energy prices for domestic consumers and
manufacturers, international partners, and the environment.
To that end, earlier this year, DOE announced that we are
undertaking review of the economic and environmental analyses,
again, that underpin our public interest determinations. We
also announced that we would pause final authorizations pending
applications while we conducted the review.
In 2011 and 2012, DOE commissioned two studies to examine
the domestic economic impact of U.S. LNG exports. In December
2012, DOE published the first two economic studies. During that
update, as with this one, DOE temporarily deferred its review
of all pending non-FTA applications. Beginning in 2014, DOE
undertook studies to evaluate the environmental impacts
associated with LNG exports because the existing analysis did
not account for the latest scientific understanding of the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
The most recent economic study published in 2018 considered
the total volume of non-FTA exports authorized at that time
equivalent to 21.35 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day
and the additional volume of LNG requested for export in the
then pending applications. DOE provided notice of each of these
studies in the Federal Register and solicited public comment.
This associated public comment process has been a valuable part
of our decision-making ever since.
I would note that one key difference between those reviews
and the current update is we have seen the pivotal role U.S.
LNG plays in safeguarding global energy security. We have also
seen periods during which U.S. LNG exports had a noticeable
influence on domestic prices, especially when demand outpaced
supply following the post-COVID economic recovery. And we are
seeing how LNG exports affect communities near
liquefactionsites in both positive and negative ways.
Finally, over the past several years, we have learned a lot
more about greenhouse gas emissions from the natural gas supply
chain and what actions can and should be taken to mitigate
them.
The forthcoming update of our economic and environmental
analysis is both robust and comprehensive. And we expect to
release the final study at the middle of--by mid-December for a
60-day public comment period.
Mr. Chairman, DOE is proud of its strong record of relying
on the most up to date and robust data and analyses when making
our public interest determinations. Without these updated
analyses, applicants whose non-FTA export applications are
approved by DOE could face likely legal challenges alleging
that DOE improperly relied on outdated analysis in making its
public interest determinations. This update underway ensures
that DOE will rely on the most up to date and robust data and
analyses to the benefit, not only of U.S. consumers and the
Nation's economic competitiveness, but also to the applicants
themselves who are seeking non-FTA export authorizations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
I think it is unfortunate that Mr. Podesta has declined our
invitation to appear before the Subcommittee today. These are
questions that I would have asked him. I would have asked him
how many times did he meet with TikTok influencers on climate
issues leading up to or following the announcement of the LNG
export ban. I would have asked him if the White House was
relying on TikTok influencers for policy advice when it pushed
the LNG ban on the DOE. I would like to know, did the White
House vet individuals and activists from organizations that it
spoke to about the LNG ban? Did they vet them for foreign
influence or sponsorship? Did the Biden-Harris Administration
make the decision to institute the ban on the LNG exports in
order to appease climate activists or in response to foreign
influence or other conflicts of interest?
It is also concerning that Mr. Podesta's brother, Tony, is
known to have lobbied for foreign LNG companies, including one
co-owned by Qatar state-run energy company. For the past 11
months since the announcement of the pause, Qatar has secured
long-term LNG export contracts, invested in export
infrastructure, and increased capacity, while the United States
falls behind competitively.
I would also like to enter into the record an article by
the Washington Free Beacon detailing these findings.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Fallon. So, do these represent a significant conflict
of interest? I think the American people have a right to know.
And we do not know if we cannot have those questions answered.
It is unfortunate. And I had to burn 2 of my minutes asking
questions I knew I was not going to get answers to.
But we do have a witness that is here today, Mr. Crabtree,
and I want to thank you for showing up.
And, Mr. Crabtree, as you know, the Committee sent a letter
to your department on the 23rd of October, this year,
requesting information regarding a potential draft study of LNG
exports that was completed in 2023. Are you familiar with the
study, and what can you share about any analysis that was done
prior to the decision to pause?
Mr. Crabtree. I am not aware, sir. I have not been
presented with the document, so I am not aware of what you are
referring to. What I can say about the process we have
undertaken is the discussions of potentially updating the
analyses began--were occurring at the staff level when I joined
the Administration. And by early 2023, we were having
discussions about updating the analysis. And work began at that
time, and there are many facets to this analysis. Each of them
involves modeling. Each of them has a qualitative and
quantitative analytical component.
And so, I imagine what you are referring to is early
documentation----
Mr. Fallon. OK.
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Of that sort, but a complete
study did not exist in 2023----
Mr. Fallon. OK. Did the White House, via Mr. Podesta or
anyone else, ever advise or suggest to you or anyone on your
team about outcomes--on what outcomes the final study or any
prior study needed to support?
Mr. Crabtree. No. I had no interaction that I recall with
the White House.
Mr. Fallon. Have you ever had any pushback on any
directives given by the White House as it relates to the future
of U.S. LNG exports?
Mr. Crabtree. No.
Mr. Fallon. OK. See, what I think it is very important for
our folks to understand is these FTA countries, we only have
agreements with 20. And there are roughly 195 countries in the
world, so 175 countries are not part of the FTA. So, when you
have a ban or a pause, it greatly impacts our ability, not only
to keep high-paying American jobs, but also securing our--the
energy security of our allies.
I had two different European allies come into our office
begging us to have the President lift this, whatever you want
to call it, the ban or pause, and ostensibly were in our office
for different reasons.
Mr. Crabtree, how many permits--because, you know,
Democrats on the Committee are claiming this was a pause and
not a ban. So, how many permits have been issued since January
26, 2024, to non-FTA countries?
Mr. Crabtree. We have issued a permit to--the New Fortress
Energy Altamira project was issued in August.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, the answer to that question would be
one?
Mr. Crabtree. One.
Mr. Fallon. One in a year. And did they apply for a 5-year
or a 20-year lease?
Mr. Crabtree. Applied for a 20-year.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Were they granted the 20-year lease?
Mr. Crabtree. No. We granted them a 5-year, because until
we update our analysis, we need to build a substantiate that
that standard----
Mr. Fallon. But you could do both. You could be doing a
study and also having an American company export a vital
resource. Because they are either going to get it from New
Mexico or Texas or some other state in our Union or they are
going to get it from Moscow. I would far rather have them get
it from us.
Mr. Crabtree. Just as the DOE did in 2012, we chose to
pause our consideration of applications.
Mr. Fallon. Well, I know you did, and I think that was
misguided. I think it was a big mistake.
Now, this company that you issued the 5-year and not the
20-year permit to, there was also an inclusion where they could
not just ask for--after 5 years, they could not ask for an
extension, they had to wait 2 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Crabtree. That is correct.
Mr. Fallon. I think that is just a very short-sighted and
misguided policy.
Thank you again for coming, though. I yield to the Ranking
Member for 5 minutes of questions.
I yield to our friend, Ms. Brown from Ohio, for her 5
minutes of questions.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Biden-Harris Administration has lived up to its promise
to strengthen American energy independence like never before,
while simultaneously combating climate change. As we have
discussed in previous hearings in this Subcommittee, in 2023,
the United States achieved its highest level of energy
production ever. This is a remarkable achievement, especially
after a global pandemic and Russia's war in Ukraine. In fact,
the 4 years of Biden-Harris Administration will mark 4
consecutive years of liquid natural gas production increases.
The Administration's efforts have solidified the United
States as the world's No. 1 LNG exporter. And LNG exports are
expected to continue increasing through the end of the decade.
So, Assistant Secretary Crabtree, thank you for joining us,
again.
I know we have discussed much of this before, but it is
worth reemphasizing, since my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle often overlook the success of the Biden-Harris
Administration. First, is the United States still the world's
largest exporter of liquid natural gas?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes. And we will continue to be the largest
exporter in 2030 based on current approvals and commitments by
other countries.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. And, Assistant Secretary Crabtree,
can you walk us through how we as a country have gotten to this
level of liquid natural gas production under the Biden-Harris
Administration?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, the significant approvals made by the
Department of Energy for authorized exports, those projects
have continued to come online. I mentioned at the outset we are
currently exporting 12 billion cubic feet today, with
additional capacity coming online. We anticipate 14 billion
cubic feet next year. I would note that in 2018 or 2019, we
were at about 3 to 4 billion cubic feet.
U.S. LNG exports exploded over a 10-year period. It is one
of the most remarkable transformations in history in terms of
energy. We started from a dead stop in 2015 to now being the
largest exporter in the world, and we will be doubling those
exports essentially by the end of the decade.
Ms. Brown. And, you touched on this a little bit, how has
the Department of Energy responded to the global crisis to
ensure we have remained in this top spot and continue to supply
LNG to our allies?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, let me note that it takes many years to
develop, permit, and finance an LNG project. And when we--when
our office approves an authorization, we give that company 7
years to begin exports. And we know from the experience going
back to the first projects in 2015 until now, these projects
can take many years. In fact, there are many projects that have
failed to commence exports within 6 years of being authorized
by our office, and many have sought actual extensions of that
time period.
So, the key thing that is misunderstood and needs to be
understood is our decisions have had no impact and will have no
impact on the flow of natural gas, not over in future months
but years because of all of the authorizations and the projects
that are--have a financial--final investment decision and are
under construction. U.S. supply will continue to grow. We now
export--about 60 percent of our natural gas goes direct to our
European partners and their need following the Russian invasion
of Ukraine. And that is more than--about 2 1/2 times what
Russia exports with pipelines and LNG. And it is roughly--
nearly half of the European demand for natural gas is satisfied
by U.S. LNG exports.
Ms. Brown. And what does that mean for the average
American?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, what that means for the average
American is that our country is playing a very important
geostrategic role in supplying energy to Europe at a critical
time and supporting our allies and their economic viability,
and we are sending a U.S. export oversees which provides
American jobs and strengthens our position as a country. And
what we are doing with this update of our analysis is to make
sure, having authorized, again, four times our current exports,
we are now taking this step of--as the program has done in both
the Trump Administration and in the Obama Administration--
update the analysis so that any future decisions in authorizing
exports incorporate the best science and the best understanding
of what the domestic and international, economic,
environmental, and other impacts will be.
Ms. Brown. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes our friend from South Carolina,
Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Secretary Crabtree, in ongoing FOIA litigation,
the Department of Energy has identified approximately 97
documents related to the LNG export pause but has resisted
releasing them. Why? What is the rationale for not releasing
those documents?
Mr. Crabtree. It is my understanding that our team that
works on document production has been in cooperative engagement
with the Committee. They committed to four document
distributions, which have occurred so far. And the next one I
understand is planned for Friday. My understanding is it is
about 2,000 or so pages of documentation. I am not part of the
process of documentation or FOIAs, and so I cannot speak to the
details of that process. In my role, I have no involvement in
it. But if you feel that the Department has not been responsive
to the Committee, I am happy to take any specific concerns back
to that team.
Mr. Fry. Will you commit to releasing those documents to
this Committee? I mean, so we have done four, you are doing
another one Friday, that is five out of, what, 97? Will you
commit to releasing those documents?
Mr. Crabtree. I will commit to meeting our obligations
under document production. I am not part of the team that does
that, and so----
Mr. Fry. Well, you prepared for this hearing today, did you
not?
Mr. Crabtree. I was invited to this hearing not to speak
about document production but to present----
Mr. Fry. But you did----
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. The natural gas program and its
export authorization.
Mr. Fry. Well, but your interactions with Congress and this
particular committee requesting these documents, this probably
came up in preparation, did it not?
Mr. Crabtree. What I shared with you came up in
preparation, but I am not----
Mr. Fry. OK. So--but there----
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. I am not going to speak to
something I am not involved in.
Mr. Fry. Well, I understand that. But, like, there is no--
if you prepared for this hearing today--you did not just wake
up and waltz in here. I do not understand the rationale that
you do not have anything to do with it, hands off, and now when
we ask for these things, you are unable to answer the most
basic questions about production of documents.
Mr. Crabtree. Sir, there is another doc--we have undertaken
four document productions and there is another one scheduled
for Friday. I am happy to take very specific concerns back. I
am not going to speak to something I do not have any
involvement in.
Mr. Fry. Well, hopefully that happens. But as the Chairman
indicated, we will get them one way or another.
Reports indicate the Department of Energy relied on a study
by Robert Howarth, which has been discredited by The
Breakthrough Institute for its flawed methodology. Why was such
a contested study given weight in this decision to pause LNG
exports?
Mr. Crabtree. The work of Dr. Howarth played no role in the
decision to undertake the update of our analyses. I have had--I
do not know Mr. Howarth. My team has not interacted with him,
nor have I. We have at the National Energy Technology Lab,
which is part of the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon
Management that I represent, has the world-class recognized
lifecycle analysis team. When we release the study mid-
December, you will see that there is an entire component to the
study on lifecycle analysis. It has a methodology. That
methodology is completely different than the work of Mr.
Howarth. I would note that there is a wide range of opinion in
the lifecycle analysis academic community, very wide range.
Mr. Fry. Were other opinions taken into consideration?
Mr. Crabtree. We take all opinions into consideration. We
listen to the academic community, we hear from industry, we
hear from scientific technical organizations, NGOs. My point is
that Dr. Howarth's study played no role in our decision-making,
and our methodology is entirely different.
Mr. Fry. OK. The pause obviously hindered LNG export, or
the terminal development delayed infrastructure projects,
jeopardized jobs in the energy sector. How does the Department
of Energy justify these economic disruptions in light of the
clear benefits of LNG exports to American workers and
communities?
Mr. Crabtree. I am very sorry. Can you repeat?
Mr. Fry. How does the Department of Energy justify the
disruptions, the economic disruptions, in light of the clear
benefits of LNG exports to the American workers and the
communities?
Mr. Crabtree. This will not surprise you that I do not
agree with that assertion. The projects that are affected by
the pause are seven. They are 5.6 billion cubic feet of
capacity. We have authorized 48 billion cubic feet. If you talk
to executives in the industry, they are struggling to find
workers. They are struggling with EPC contracts. There is so
much project development going on on the Gulf Coast that they
cannot keep up. In the timeframe for the pause that we
instituted is short enough that I just--I do not agree with
that assertion that there has been disruption to the
development of U.S. projects or certainly not----
Mr. Fry. I think others would have a difference of opinion.
Last question before my time wraps up. What steps is the
Department of Energy taking to ensure that companies, domestic
companies, can compete globally against nations like Qatar,
Russia, which have capitalized on this pause that we have in
this country?
Mr. Crabtree. So, again, I do not agree that they
capitalized on this pause. Qatar's major announcement to
increase capacity was years in the making, sir. I have met with
Minister Al Kaabi himself and his team; they are very
strategic. These are multibillion dollar investments that--the
decisions are made after years of work. So, the idea that Qatar
would be so unsophisticated that they would make that sort of a
commitment based on our temporary decision is just not
credible.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes our friend from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crabtree, my Republican colleagues have frequently
mischaracterized the Department of Energy's actions regarding
the brief pause on reviewing new liquefied natural gas export
permit applications. The truth is actually so much simpler. The
Biden-Harris Administration recognized significant changes in
economic, global, national security, and environmental
considerations for the liquefied natural gas industry. These
changes prompted the need for an updated study to better inform
decision-makers on new LNG permits.
Mr. Crabtree, can you give us a quick overview of the
significant changes to the liquefied natural gas market that
prompted a new study?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes. Thank you for the question.
So, the changes are multiple. One is, again as I have
already noted, the sheer scale of the growth of the industry
here in the United States, from zero in 2015 to 12 billion
cubic feet averaging this year and expected 14 billion cubic
feet of exports, is unprecedented growth of an industry from a
dead start.
And as far as our reasoning, so we want--as it has been
noted by the Chairman that natural gas provides a very
important role, and the Ranking Member as well, a very
important role in our domestic economy. We are a major global
manufacturer and industrial producer in the world today.
Natural gas at a low cost is of great benefit to our economy.
We also have households which depend on natural gas for heating
and electricity.
And so, we need to make sure that as we grow this--as this
industry has grown, that we are making decisions about future
exports. We have authorized over half of our domestic natural
gas production for export. So, we want to make sure that, going
forward, that we are, one, making sure that we are supplying
our allies, which we are doing; and two, that we are making
sure that we continue to maintain low prices and our domestic
industrial competitiveness and also affordability for
households.
When we were faced with the decision of whether to pause
our applications and update our analysis, we were looking at
incoming applications that would have put our authorizations
for export at levels that had been higher than the DOE has ever
even modeled. And so, this was an appropriate time for us to
take a step back, when all this development is in the pipeline
and happening on the Gulf Coast, to take a look at what would
be the implications of even higher export levels from an
economic, a jobs, a domestic crisis, environmental energy
security, all those aspects, do a science-based technical
analysis so that future decisions about yet additional exports,
which are pending, could be made responsibly.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Crabtree, how will the new study lead
to more informed decisions on new LNG permit applications, and
how will that benefit Americans at large?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, so first of all, the current economic
analysis we are working with is 6 years old. And as I had
mentioned, we were only exporting 3 to 4 billion cubic feet per
day when that study was completed during the Trump
Administration. And our latest environmental analysis is 5
years old. So, we will now have more up-to-date analysis about
the economic effects of increased export levels and the
environmental effects. And the environmental effects are not
only greenhouse gas emissions, but upstream and downstream
effects of natural gas production related to export on
communities, for example.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Crabtree, will the new study also
help LNG companies to have applications before the Department?
Mr. Crabtree. Congressman
[sic], I appreciate that question because I think this is
an important point that is getting lost.
In 2012, the Obama Administration undertook economic
analysis of given levels of liquefied natural gas exports. When
the Trump Administration approved, authorized exports, the
Trump Administration relied on the Obama-era analysis. During
the Biden Administration, in terms of the approvals that have
been made by the Biden Administration, and the team that I
oversee in our Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management,
relied on the economic analysis from 2018 that was undertaken
during the Trump Administration. So, there is a regular
precedent of relying across administrations on the analysis of
this program.
And I would note that--and this is really important--in
2017, the Sierra Club challenged four of our export
authorizations. This was during the Trump Administration. And
the D.C. court upheld those four authorizations, and it was in
part based on the strength of the economic and environmental
analysis that our program has consistently undertaken.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes our good friend from Texas, Mr.
Pfluger.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the
opportunity to waive on.
Mr. Crabtree, good to see you again. I will start by saying
I think the American public spoke pretty loud and clear on
November 5, so this is a great hearing, but we also have a
mandate from the American public to actually unleash American
energy and that was at the top of the ballot I believe in every
state.
I want to get into some specifics, and I will start by
saying, was any analysis conducted by the administration prior
to the January 26 announcement, specifically between January 1,
2023, and October 31 of 2023? And how is it determined that is
based on what specific factors and evidence that an updated
study was actually needed?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, Congressman, good to see you again.
Thank you for that question.
You were not here earlier; I explained that we actually
began work on the update in the timeframe largely that you
suggest. The discussions were actually going on with the career
team when I was confirmed and started my work. Those
discussions began in earnest in 2023.
The thing that I think has been misrepresented in some of
the news coverage and comments that have been made is that the
analysis is multifaceted. The labs we are working with and the
team we have at DOE are working on--there is the domestic GDP
and price impacts, there are environmental impacts, both
greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts. There
are a whole range of things that we are looking at. Each of
those areas has its own modeling and its own quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
So, in 2023, there were work products being developed that
were not a complete study but that were part of the process
that has been ongoing since then.
Mr. Pfluger. Let me jump to that. Have the DOE leadership
or anyone in the White House received the report's results,
even if preliminary, of the export study conducted during those
first 10 months that you are referring to? And did those
reports conclude that there is no credible basis to restrict
LNG exports? Is that what the initial report said, that there
is no reason to restrict exports?
Mr. Crabtree. No, that was not what those reports----
Mr. Pfluger. So, they said we do----
Mr. Crabtree. It was not a report.
Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. But preliminary permission from
the----
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, you could not derive that conclusion
from that work.
Mr. Pfluger. OK. So, was there a conclusion derived that
said to the President or the Administration that you should
restrict LNG----
Mr. Crabtree. No, nor was there--nor was there one that we
should increase it. It was not definitive in that way.
Mr. Pfluger. OK. Let me move to the White House
involvement.
Mr. Crabtree. Sir, I would say it is an iterative process,
like most modeling analysis is. We agreed on assumptions as a
team. We worked with our labs on an iterative basis. That is
how DOE has done its analysis for years. And I just have to
make this point: across Presidential administrations, DOE has
been respected as one of the most significant scientific and
technical organizations in the world. And when the study comes
out mid-December, I think you will agree that this study is
very consistent with that tradition.
Mr. Pfluger. I think our problem and the reason that this
hearing is probably being held today is because that science
seems to have been departed from, especially when considering
the public interest and whether or not it is in the public
interest to export LNG when every country around the world is
asking for it.
The Howarth study, you know--I know my friend, Mr. Fry, was
discussing this. Does DOE reject Howarth's findings?
Mr. Crabtree. Our methodology is fundamentally different
from that of Mr. Howarth. I had said it earlier, I do not know
if you were in the room, that our National Energy Technology
Lab lifecycle analysis team is one of the most distinguished in
the world. The work that you will see mid-December for the
lifecycle analysis is their work, and the work of Mr. Howarth
played no role in our decision to proceed with the analysis.
And I would note again for the Committee that there is a
robust debate in the academic lifecycle analysis community, as
there are in many other academic communities. But DOE and its
labs and the career staff do their own work, sir.
Mr. Pfluger. So, can you say that you reject Howarth's
findings?
Mr. Crabtree. No, I am not going to make comments like
that, because the analysis is coming out mid-December. And I
want all of you, industry, environmental organizations, the
American public, to evaluate the study as the study when it is
publicly available and not based on piecemeal and my comments.
Mr. Pfluger. Has the White House directed DOE to finalize
the study before January 20?
Mr. Crabtree. No. We committed all along to have this----
Mr. Pfluger. So, it was Secretary Granholm did this of her
own ambition and the President never asked her to do this?
Mr. Crabtree. That is correct.
Mr. Pfluger. I asked her about a year ago, she was the
principal advisor to the President of the United States on
energy matters, and she could not conclusively say that she
was. So, who else has led in this study? Can you name the names
in the Department of Energy?
Mr. Crabtree. I am not--my answer was not in reference to
that; it was in reference to this study. And what I am telling
you is Secretary Granholm is the one who made the decision to
undertake the update.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our friend from New
Mexico, Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
These are always interesting journeys into the inner
psychic worlds of industry and whatever it is they are trying
to get out of these hearings so they can make their case in
front of boards and courts and board rooms. But I like to go
back to basics a little bit, because I think one of the things
that we can do in hearings is to help educate the public. I
think for many folks who are not industry experts or not energy
nerds like us, they may not even know what exactly LNG is, why
do we export it, why is the United States the largest exporter
of LNG, how did we get here.
So, I wonder, Assistant Secretary, could you just briefly
kind of give a quick primer on what is LNG, where does it come
from, why is the U.S. exporting so much of it, why did we need
to do a study about it?
Mr. Crabtree. So, LNG is natural gas highly compressed, so
compressed that you can take very large volumes of gas and
transport it on a ship efficiently, cost effectively. The
technology was really pioneered decades ago by Japan, which has
deeply deep energy insecurity because they do not produce their
own energy resources. And at that starting from that Japanese
leadership it has become a major component of global energy
production and use.
Because it is natural gas but can be transported in
compressed form, it is very convenient. It can be shipped all
over the world. Our industry was financed by the private sector
based on long-term contracts. The destinations of those
contracts are flexible, so it has been very attractive for
investors in the United States and around the world to invest
in the development of our liquefaction terminals. U.S. LNG is
especially attractive in the global market because of that
destination flexibility.
The second part of your question, I am sorry----
Ms. Stansbury. I think you are getting at it. You know, one
of the things I think that is important to understand, because
oftentimes just the kind of economic and production realities
of oil and gas production get lost in these conversations. In
New Mexico, similar to Texas, a significant portion of our
state's income comes from oil and gas revenues, and so we track
it very closely. And one of the things that I think is
important to understand for folks who do not track the industry
is that we had an exponential increase starting about a decade
ago in gas production, especially in the Permian Basin, which
is in New Mexico and Texas.
And as a result of that, in shrinking markets and the
inability to offload gas in a timely manner in some cases and
overproduction because there was a lot of new horizontal
drilling happening, et cetera, exports became increasingly
important because we had extra stuff, right. And so, there is
an interest right now because there is a tremendous opportunity
to increase drilling, which I think is the point that our
colleagues across the aisle are making, but it is for the
benefit of these private companies. So, it is in the interest
of these private companies to drill, baby, drill as much as
they can produce and export as much as they can produce. But
one of the constraining factors is infrastructure to actually
get it on to ships and actually send it overseas.
And so, I think folks who are listening who may not
understand the industry and kind of the ebb and flow of oil and
gas production may not really kind of understand kind of the
economics of what we are talking about here. This is not about
American energy security. This is about creating international
markets for private industry to sell excess gas that they have.
And what the U.S. Government is trying to do under the Biden
Administration is be responsible so that if industry is going
to have a bonanza, which is being driven by international
prices and demand, that we do it in a responsible manner, that
it does not harm American consumers, that it does not drive up
the cost of our own oil and gas prices, that it does not hurt
us in our own utility payments, that it does not hit us at the
pump, and that it does not have unintended consequences
globally in terms of our geopolitical relationships with other
countries, especially as we are facing conflicts and other
responsibilities we have to our allies and those who are not
our allies.
So, I think it is just important for folks to understand
the context of what this study is. It is one of the most
sophisticated modeling exercises. It is not a piece of paper,
right. Folks are talking like, ``oh, they found a dusty piece
of paper somewhere in a filing cabinet that they had already
wrote and filed away.'' This is a multimillion-dollar modeling
exercise to understand global export markets for gas products
that the industry would like the U.S. Government to permit and
subsidize. And we are trying to figure it out, is it in the
public interest to allow this giant bonanza without any
guardrails around it? And that is really what this study is
about. And that is why the majority is bringing this hearing
here is because industry is asking them to.
I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our friend from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crabtree, are you aware of any of our allies who have
publicly supported what is described as the pause?
Mr. Crabtree. Both prior to and following our decision to
pause consideration of pending applications I met with a number
of my counterparts in importing countries. And there are
different views about the pause. But what has been
mischaracterized----
Mr. Perry. No, no. I am just asking you which ones I think
publicly--yes, publicly----
Mr. Crabtree. I am not going to--in a congressional
hearing, I am not going to draw out our individual allies.
Mr. Perry. I am not asking you to draw them out.
Mr. Crabtree. Well, I said which ones?
Mr. Perry. Well, I said publicly supported. So, you are not
drawing someone out if you are just--if you are just echoing
their--I am just asking you which one public--which ones
publicly supported the so-called pause. Any?
Mr. Crabtree. They also did not publicly oppose it either.
You had individual policy-makers from Europe and East Asia,
countries on both sides of the debate, make public statements.
But as far as national governments----
Mr. Perry. OK. So, which ones opposed it?
Mr. Crabtree. In my experience, none opposed it. We
explained our rationale. We explained how our decision does not
affect natural gas----
Mr. Perry. So, nobody opposed----
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Exports to these countries until
2030----
Mr. Perry. Right.
Mr. Crabtree. And it will--under current authorizations----
Mr. Perry. OK.
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Under construction we will be
doubling our exports. But within that context that we----
Mr. Perry. But what you are implying is, is that no one--
that no one opposed it and everyone----
Mr. Crabtree. I am not aware of public opposition. There is
a range of views in this country among individual----
Mr. Perry. Yes, I get it.
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Policy-makers in those
countries. Clearly, yes.
Mr. Perry. But are you aware that anybody publicly
supported it? Any?
Mr. Crabtree. No. But I am saying that in the----
Mr. Perry. But it is important, because what you are
implying is, is that they did not publicly support it, but
behind closed doors, just to me, they were all for it, they
just did not want to say so publicly.
Mr. Crabtree. I am not suggesting that.
Mr. Perry. OK. Well, as long as you are not suggesting
that.
Let me just move on. There were 97 documents--approximately
97 documents responsive to a FOIA request submitted by the
public interest group Government Accountability and Oversight
regarding the Department's study of LNG exports. Why is the
Department refusing to release those documents?
Mr. Crabtree. Sir, I have already addressed all of this.
Mr. Perry. I am sorry if I was not here.
Mr. Crabtree. No apologies, but I will try to reiterate
briefly.
Mr. Perry. OK.
Mr. Crabtree. So, my understanding again is that I am not
part of the documents production team. I--in the FOIA team at
DOE, I am not part of that process. What I understand from that
team is that they have engaged constructively with the
Committee. They have produced documents on four different
occasions and will be doing so again on Friday, that a large--
--
Mr. Perry. Does that include----
Mr. Crabtree. And as far as----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. These 97 documents?
Mr. Crabtree. I cannot speak to the 97 documents. I do know
that the FOIA request is under litigation, and so I am not
going to speak to something that is under litigation. But in
any case, I am not involved in that process. What I offered to
your colleague earlier is that if there are specific concerns
about responsiveness or how this is being approached, I am
happy to take that back to the team and have follow-up----
Mr. Perry. OK. Well, let me ask you this----
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. With your staff.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Mr. Crabtree. Sixteen states sued
the Administration, and in response a Federal District Court
issued a stay against the pause going into effect. But the
Administration appears in violation of that. Why would that be?
Mr. Crabtree. The Department of Energy complies with court
orders. We--in August, we authorized a----
Mr. Perry. So, you are saying you are in compliance right
now with this Federal District Court which issued a stay
against the pause?
Mr. Crabtree. I am not going to comment--I am not going to
comment on pending litigation, but what I am saying----
Mr. Perry. No, it is not--the judge issued a stay. It is
not pending. He issued a stay against the pause. So, is the
pause in effect or is it not in effect?
Mr. Crabtree. In following the judge's order, the judge's
order was in July, and at the end of August we issued a non-FTA
authorization to New Fortress Energy Altamira. I am not going
to speak to what other activities are underway. Across
administrations this program has not talked about the timing or
which specific decisions are forthcoming. I am not going to
change that now.
Mr. Perry. Let me ask you this: did the White House meet
with TikTok influencers leading up to the pause in LNG exports?
Mr. Crabtree. I cannot speak to----
Mr. Perry. Were you involved in any of those meetings.
Mr. Crabtree. I--no. I have no involvement whatsoever----
Mr. Perry. You were not----
Mr. Crabtree. I do not even have a TikTok account. I have
never been----
Mr. Perry. I am not asking if you do. You do not have to
have an account.
Mr. Crabtree. I know you are not but, I mean, I have no,
zero----
Mr. Perry. Zero meetings with a TikTok influencer?
Mr. Crabtree. Zero.
Mr. Perry. OK. And what about with Mr. Bill McKibbin? Did
you have any meetings with him?
Mr. Crabtree. I have never met with Mr. Bill McKibbin. I
know who he is, obviously. I have actually personally never met
him, let alone in my time at DOE, never.
Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our good friend from
Colorado, Ms. Boebert.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crabtree, 16 states sued the Biden-Harris
Administration over the LNG pause, in response to which a
Federal District Court judge issued a stay against the LNG
pause going into effect. Why are DOE and the Biden-Harris
regime continuing with the pause and defying the order issued
by the Federal District Court?
And I apologize if you have answered this, but I have not
received the answer to this in this hearing yet.
Mr. Crabtree. What I said just previously with Congressman
Perry is that we, following the judge's order at the end of
August, we issued a non-FTA authorization to New Fortress
Energy Altamira. And I am not going to speak to which further
applications and the timing of them, but it is our intent to
comply with any judge's order.
Ms. Boebert. If it is your intent, then why is it not
happening?
Mr. Crabtree. I am not going to comment further on
something that is in litigation.
Ms. Boebert. So, we are here as United States
Representatives in an Oversight Subcommittee, having a hearing,
bringing you in from the Administration. We have--your salary
is appropriated by Congress. And it is our role to have
oversight and accountability, and for you to sit here and
refuse to answer is really struggling. In fact, it may be the
reason why we have to create a commission now, the Department
of Government Efficiency Commission, to have actual oversight
and accountability on the administration, on bureaucrats. You
know, we used to call that Congress.
But when we bring you in here, we are just stonewalled. You
have a Federal court decision on this stay, and this decision
is being defied by the Administration, and you refuse to
comment on why.
Mr. Crabtree. Congresswoman, it is common practice for
someone in my role not to comment on something that is subject
to pending litigation.
Ms. Boebert. It is common that it is frustrating to the
American citizens who pay your salary, and these tax dollars
are squandered, rules are defied.
Now, Mr. Crabtree, this LNG pause, it is clearly just more
pandering to the Green New Deal extremists from this
Administration. Exporting LNG is actually great for job
creation, our economy, and even emissions reductions. No one
produces energy cleaner in the entire world than we do here in
America. The United States produces the cleanest energy in the
world, and if the rest of the world is not getting energy from
us, where are they getting it from? They are getting it from
Russia, China, Venezuela, from Iran. Our natural gas is 42
percent cleaner than Russia's gas.
This pause is funding both sides of wars around the world,
and we need to stop buying oil and gas from Russia, stop
begging OPEC, Venezuela, and even Iran to produce energy for us
and start producing and exporting American energy and creating
these American jobs. And I am confident that the next
Administration, with President Trump's leadership, will
prioritize our natural security and our energy security.
And the lack of transparency----
Mr. Crabtree. Congresswoman?
Ms. Boebert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crabtree. Congresswoman, this decision to pause our
pending applications, as I have said several times in this
Committee, have not led to stopping one BTU of U.S. natural gas
exports, because we are currently exporting 12 billion cubic
feet. We are about to----
Ms. Boebert. How many jobs have been lost?
Mr. Crabtree. Let me finish. We are about to get to 14
billion cubic feet, and we have authorized----
Ms. Boebert. How many jobs----
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. We have authorized an
additional--I am going to finish this.
Ms. Boebert. Actually, the time is mine. The time is mine
and----
Mr. Crabtree. We have authorized an additional 12 billion
cubic feet that is under construction----
Ms. Boebert. How many American jobs have been lost?
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. And there will be no impact----
Ms. Boebert. Tens of thousands of American jobs----
Mr. Crabtree. No, they have not.
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. Have been lost. Absolutely, they
have. My district, in Colorado, has been regulated into poverty
because of decisions like this, because of defying Federal
court rulings. This Administration is costing American jobs and
livelihoods.
Mr. Crabtree. Construction of liquefaction terminals on the
Gulf Coast is----
Ms. Boebert. Mothers are forced to go to work and get a
second job.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Crabtree? Mr. Crabtree, can you let the
Member finish, please, and then you can respond?
Ms. Boebert. Now, the lack of transparency by DOE is
demonstrated, not only by the DOE's withholding of the FOIA'd
documents that could answer legitimate requests, but also by
DOE refusing to give Members of Congress answers to their
questions about the LNG export pause.
And that is what you are doing today, you are refusing to
give us answers here that we are trying to seek.
Why is the DOE not responding to questions asked by Members
of Congress?
Mr. Crabtree. As I have already said, we have provided
documents on four different occasions--we will do so again on
Friday--to this Committee. As far as the litigation, I am not
going to speak to that.
And I do have to respond to the issue of jobs. Right now,
on the Gulf Coast, the development of liquefaction terminals
is----
Ms. Boebert. No. Mr. Crabtree----
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Proceeding at such a pace that
they are----
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. Mr. Crabtree----
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Having challenges finding
employees.
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. The time is expired. I do want--
did the Biden Administration make the decision to institute a
pause on LNG exports to appease climate activists?
Mr. Crabtree. No.
Ms. Boebert. I believe they did. My time is expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes our good friend from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Crabtree, do you know who I am? Do you
know who I am?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, sir, I do, and good to see you again.
Mr. Higgins. It is my district that has been most severely
injured by this pause which has in itself injured the planet,
because we most certainly produce the cleanest LNG and
transportable, affordable energy for the entire world to
consume. And the pause in permitting has created quite a crisis
of continuity when massive projects that require international
investment--you know these things.
So, I am talking to you right now, Mr. Crabtree, and you
are talking to me. It is of minor importance what you told
other members during this hearing or what you will tell other
members after I ask you some questions.
What is of major importance is that when I ask you a
question, you answer it. And do not raise your finger to me,
good sir.
Are you--are you the Assistant Secretary for the United
States Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon
Management?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Do you lead and direct the fossil energy and
carbon management research and development programs?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
So, a court--if it is OK with you, this is Article III, it
is part of our Constitution. A court makes inquiries and has
official statements and writ of the historical record. And part
of this court's historical record was reference to the
frequently mentioned report here--we cannot seem to get our
hands on--that a second search on Hotel Quebec 202402097
foxtrot, was completed in August 2024.
The DOE has subsequently identified 97 potentially
responsive documents, totaling 4,354 pages.
Mr. Crabtree, are you aware of the existence of the 4,354-
some-odd pages referenced by this court document?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, and that those documents were produced.
Mr. Higgins. No, I asked you, are you aware of their
existence? That was my question.
Mr. Crabtree. I cannot individually speak to being aware of
all those documents.
Mr. Higgins. So, who would be aware? Because that is a
research document they are referencing, and you stated earlier
you lead the fossil energy and carbon management research and
development programs.
So, life comes down to one guy, and you are the one guy,
that if you do not know of the existence of 4,354 pages of
research material in your office, who should we ask?
Mr. Crabtree. Sir, I actually appreciate that you called it
research material, because that is the type of material that
our labs and our team have been producing for various aspects
of the overall study.
Mr. Higgins. Reclaiming my time. You run the research and
development programs. You just told me you did. Were you
incorrect in that assessment?
Mr. Crabtree. I did, but if you are asking me if I am
personally aware----
Mr. Higgins. There is no buts.
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Of all those documents, then----
Mr. Higgins. Do you run the research and development
programs?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Higgins. Yes. And these are research documents--do we
concede that point--these 4,354----
Mr. Crabtree. They are analytical documents.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. They are research documents?
Four-thousand-three-hundred-fifty-four pages of research
documents out of your office, this Committee wants those pages.
Will you deliver those 4,354 pages to this Committee very
quickly or not? Will you deliver those pages?
We do not care what is in them. You might think it is
crazy, but we get to decide what is in them. We get to review
the original evidence.
So, I am asking you, in your capacity as leader of your
office, you have possession of these 4,354 pages of documents.
This Committee demands them. Will you deliver them or not, good
sir?
Mr. Crabtree. Sir, I am not responsible for document
production. I will take your request and your insistence back
to the team.
Mr. Higgins. What does that mean, take it back to the team?
Mr. Crabtree. The team that is responsible for document
production.
Mr. Higgins. Will you submit a request tomorrow that the
documents be turned over to this Committee?
Mr. Crabtree. I will discuss this tomorrow with the team,
yes, but I am not involved in----
Mr. Higgins. Can you identify who the team is?
Mr. Crabtree. I am not going to speak to who is----
Mr. Higgins. What do you mean you are not going to speak
to--are these like CIA members or something?
Mr. Crabtree. No, but I am not going----
Mr. Higgins. They are part of your office, right?
Mr. Crabtree. I am not going to speak to--I am not going to
speak to the individuals that I----
Mr. Higgins. Are these individuals that work for you?
Mr. Crabtree. No. The document----
Mr. Higgins. Individuals that you work for?
Mr. Crabtree. The FOIA and document production work is done
by a separate part of DOE.
Mr. Higgins. I am not FOIA. I am Clay Higgins. I represent
my district.
Mr. Crabtree. I know. I am just telling you, both are done
by--are done outside of my office, sir----
Mr. Higgins. I am sitting on this Committee.
Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Is what I am saying.
Mr. Higgins. I am asking you to deliver these 4,354 pages.
You have stated under oath before this Committee that you will
discuss that request with your, quote-unquote, team tomorrow.
We expect these papers, or somebody, Mr. Chairman, got to
be held in contempt if we do not get these 4,354 pages of
documents. And some of those people may be sitting in this
room.
I yield.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for
closing remarks.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, another interesting hearing
before the Subcommittee. You know, I would suggest that if
folks are looking for missing documents, there might be a
certain bathroom in southern Florida where a lot of government
documents have been illegally stored. Just an idea.
It is also interesting----
Mr. Fallon. Also, a garage in Delaware.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. To hear that my friends across
the aisle are suddenly very concerned about having social media
influencers involved in government decision-making. I hope that
will extend to the new Subcommittee that a certain billionaire,
social media owner is hoping to intersect with right here in
this Committee in the coming years.
And I am also intrigued to hear that my colleagues are
suddenly very concerned about foreign influence over American
energy production, given the amount of Russian disinformation
we hear daily inside this Committee.
But I hope these are all positive signs that we are doing
real oversight here. I guess time will tell.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to correct the
record here. I have got a Reuters article from March 20, 2024,
that talks about the oil boom under the Biden Administration
and how it has fueled job production here in the United States.
Mr. Fallon. Would you like to enter that into the record?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, please.
Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. So, I think it is great to end on
a factual note. And I know that the Department of Energy fully
plans to, as was stated here today under oath, to release their
many-yeared study that spans multiple national laboratories,
multiple disciplines, multiple models, thousands of documents,
research activities, in the coming days.
And it sounds like there is going to be a robust 60-day
comment period during which Members of Congress cannot only
look under the hood at what is in the study, what went into it,
they can get documents associated with it. The industries who
are interested in it can make comments on it. The environmental
community can make comments on it.
So, for folks who are interested in this topic, stay tuned.
It sounds like Department of Energy is going to release their
study in just a few short days.
So, with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
So, you know, I now recognize myself for a closing
statement.
We have said, repeatedly, we heard that this was a brief
pause. A brief pause is a few days or even maybe a couple of
weeks. It is not a full year.
And one of my colleagues asked about what industry
discussions occurred before this hearing or what industry
discussions occurred to prompt this hearing, did industry ask
for this hearing. I can unequivocally say that there was zero
discussions with anyone in industry. This was something that we
decided to do.
Then I heard the comment, kind of a class warfare, anti-
capitalistic comment about we are here to pump up the profits.
Well, I would rather have American jobs created and sustained
and supported than jobs in Qatar or Russia or Saudi Arabia,
Venezuela, et al. I am rooting for American profits. I am
rooting for American prosperity. I do not want American
poverty.
And, you know, you could definitely have done, Mr.
Crabtree, this study while also approving new export permits.
You could have done both. You did not have to do--it was not an
either-or scenario. They did not need to be mutually exclusive.
And then we heard about, well, you know, we have record
highs of energy production. A lot of this happens--what we
produce today is because of policies that were set in place 5
years ago, 4 years ago, 7 years ago. There is a lag time--that
needs to be mentioned--and it takes years, and there is a
ripple effect.
And then for someone of your stature, Mr. Crabtree, to say
that a year-long pause has no impact is inane, and it is just--
it is fatuous. I mean, it is really remarkable that you made
that claim.
And I think on November 5 the American people made it very
clear that they were tired of an Administration playing
politics with their future. Enough is enough.
When we have members of other nation-states and allies come
into our office unprompted and beg us to see if there is
anything that we can do to have this pause/ban lifted, it is
really telling. And it is chilling that the President did not
even know and was not seemingly aware of the impact of this
pause. And we have seen unnecessary damage done by this
Administration across industries, especially the energy sector,
by leftists that want to demonize energy production.
We are not where--we are not in a situation where we can go
completely renewable. I know that that is what they teach these
young kids in college campuses, but it is not factual. We are
where we are. And then to have the President of the United
States at a State of the Union Address say that we may need
fossil fuels 10 years from now is, again, ludicrous and to the
extreme.
Now, we will see what happens 10 years from now.
There is really never a discussion either on nuclear energy
with folks that are on the political left. If you want to talk
about reducing carbon emissions, I think that is a discussion
that we really should have, if we are serious about this, or if
it is just trying to pollute young minds into voting a certain
way.
So, what did this thing serve? It certainly did not serve
Mr. Higgins' district and the energy workers in Louisiana and
wondering why their paychecks are not--I mean, are they going
to have a paycheck, a steady one, after these stalled LNG
exports on the Gulf Coast. And it did not serve a mother in
Texas who works multiple jobs to afford her family's bills when
energy prices inevitably rise during the winter.
Who will it really serve is leftist climate activists so
they can feel good about themselves at cocktail parties that
they are doing something good when they are not. They are
causing far more harm. American families suffer when we are not
dealing with the realties on the ground.
But there is good news. America rejected these policies
last month, and we are on a cusp of a new era, I believe, in
global energy leadership under President-elect Trump.
I think what we will see, not only in the next 4 years but
in the next decade-plus, is a renaissance of American energy.
And the incoming Administration has vowed to end this political
nonsense and return commonsense policies that benefit all
Americans, and the value of LNG exports provide our economy and
the energy sector of our allies.
I mean, it is synergistic and it does create a boost, and
it cannot be overstated. The U.S. is uniquely situated. We have
been blessed by history to meet our energy needs at home, while
at the same time maintaining a strategic advantage of supplying
the world with clean, affordable energy.
And the more energy that we can produce--we do it cleaner--
and export to our allies, it really does put us in a position--
the former Secretary of State Pompeo was saying, when he would
negotiate with other nation-states and his counterparts and
heads of state, it gave him more leverage because we have what
people need, and that is--you know, it is all interrelated.
In a recent study published in the Sustainable Chemistry
and Energy, they found that the American LNG delivered to
Europe had a greenhouse gas intensity 22 to 53 percent lower
than previous studies, meaning that previous assessments
overestimated the environmental impacts.
I would like to enter this study into the record so our
colleagues at the DOE may review these findings.
And without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Fallon. In the coming years, the world is going to
continue to need more energy, not less, and the American people
know this because they are living with the impacts of these
short-sided decisions every day.
Mr. Crabtree, I am sorry that this Administration has put
you in a position to have to defend policies that are not in
the best interest of the country. It is a failure at the
highest level, and the energy industry will not soon forget the
harm done by your colleagues.
As the 118th Congress soon comes to a close, we have an
opportunity to turn the page on the last 4 years and put the
interest of the United States front and center once again.
America is blessed with an abundance of resources to fill our
future energy needs as well as those of our allies and a
workforce that is eager to make this possible.
The incoming Trump Administration is committed to
supporting energy workers, both in my home state of Texas and
across the country, New Mexico included, and I look forward to
the next 4 years ahead.
With that, and without objection, all members will have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials, to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses--or in this
case, the witness, unfortunately--which will be forwarded to
the witness for his response.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee shall stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]