    [House Report 119-269]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    119th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     1st Session                                                    119-269

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

                     UNLOCKING OUR DOMESTIC LNG POTENTIAL
                                  ACT OF 2025

                                    _______

     September 11, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
                the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                    _______

     Mr. Guthrie, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
                                   following

                                  R E P O R T

                                 together with

                                 MINORITY VIEWS

                            [To accompany H.R. 1949]

        The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
    the bill (H.R. 1949) to repeal restrictions on the export and
    import of natural gas, having considered the same, reports
    favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the
    bill do pass.

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page
    Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
    Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
    Committee Action.................................................     4
    Committee Votes..................................................     4
    Oversight Findings and Recommendations...........................     7
    New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     7
    Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     7
    Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     7
    Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     7
    Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     7
    Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings......................     7
    Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     9
    Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......     9
    Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     9
    Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     9
    Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     9
    Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
    Minority, Additional, or Dissenting Views........................    13
    Exchange of Letters with Additional Committees of Referral.......

                              Purpose and Summary

        H.R. 1949, the ``Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act
    of 2025,'' was introduced by Representative Pfluger (R-TX) on
    March 6, 2025. The legislation would lift all restrictions on
    the import and export of natural gas, with limited exceptions
    to limit trade with a person or foreign country under sanction
    or listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

                      Background and Need for Legislation

        Since the first-ever export of liquified natural gas (LNG)
    from the lower-48 states in February 2016,\1\ the United States
    has emerged as the world's number one producer of oil and
    natural gas, and a leading exporter of LNG, contributing to
    enhanced energy security, economic growth, and diplomatic
    leverage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\EIA, Natural Gas Weekly Update, U.S. Energy Information
    Administration (Feb. 24, 2016), https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/
    archivenew_ngwu/2016/02_25/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2023 alone, the U.S. LNG industry contributed $44
    billion in economic activity, supported 222,000 jobs, reduced
    the trade deficit, and provided $11 billion in taxes and
    royalty payments.\2\ These benefits will only grow as LNG
    exports are projected to contribute roughly $1.3 trillion to
    the economy by 2040.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\National Association of Manufacturers, Quantifying America's
    Economic and Energy Opportunity through LNG Exports, NAM (Oct. 2024),
    https://nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Quantifying-Americas-
    Economic-and-Energy-Opportunity-through-LNG-Exports.pdf.
        \3\U.S. Chamber of Commerce Energy, U.S. Chamber: Comprehensive New
    S&P Global Analysis Demonstrates Importance of LNG Exports, U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce (Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.uschamber.com/energy/
    u-s-chamber-comprehensive-new-s-p-global-analysis-
    demonstrates-importance-of-lng-
    exports#::text=%E2%80%9CThe%20research%20conducted
    %20by%20S&P,fuel%20resources%20from%20other%20countries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under current law, any person wishing to import or export
    U.S. natural gas must obtain multiple Federal and State
    permits, undergoing a rigorous regulatory review. Applicants
    must obtain authorization to import or export the commodity,
    natural gas, and must also obtain approval to construct and
    operate the LNG facility.
        The Committee has found that some aspects of the regulatory
    review are duplicative and unnecessary, which has contributed
    to delays and introduced regulatory uncertainty that has
    stifled economic growth and job development. For example, under
    the Natural Gas Act (NGA),\4\ applicants must complete an
    environmental and safety review of a proposed LNG export
    facility with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
    before DOE will consider whether to grant authorization to
    export natural gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement countries, even
    though there is a clear statutory presumption that LNG exports
    are in the public interest. The NGA does not require a separate
    public interest determination in the case exports to countries
    where a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is in effect; however, even
    while the statute requires DOE to issue authorization ``without
    modification or delay,'' DOE routinely waits months to issue
    FTA authorizations.\5\ Furthermore, in Seven County
    Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Supreme
    Court of the United States recently held that the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) only applies to the direct
    impacts of a proposed project itself, not separate or indirect
    effects of a project.\6\ This 8-0 decision reaffirms the
    importance of eliminating duplicative and unnecessary reviews
    of projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 717-717z.
        \5\15 U.S.C. Sec. 717b.
        \6\Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., Colorado, 145
    S. Ct. 1497, 221 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In January 2024, President Biden announced an indefinite
    moratorium on the issuance of export permits to non-FTA
    countries while it conducted a review of the climate impacts of
    natural gas.\7\ Prior to this announcement, DOE had already
    commissioned five studies to examine the effects of U.S. LNG
    exports.\8\ The results unanimously demonstrated the benefits
    to the U.S. economy and domestic natural gas prices. In fact,
    despite total U.S. natural gas consumption nearly doubling from
    2010 to 2023, the 2023 average natural gas price of $2.54 per
    MMBtu was the second-lowest level in over 35 years.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\Presidential Statement on Decision to Pause Pending Approvals of
    Liquified Natural Gas Exports 2024, Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. (Jan. 26,
    2024).
        \8\Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 83 FR 27314, Study on
    Macroeconomic Outcomes of LNG Exports (June 12, 2018).
        \9\American Petroleum Institute (API), Estimated Value Added from
    LNG Price Differential, API (Mar. 18, 2024), https://www.api.org//
    media/files/news/2024/03/18/api-eva-lng-price-full-
    report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Committee has determined that natural gas should not be
    subject to burdensome and unnecessary trade restrictions, and
    that the regulatory framework for natural gas should be
    harmonized with that of petroleum products and crude oil. In
    2015, Congress recognized the need to adapt to changing crude
    oil market conditions and repealed all restrictions on the
    export of crude oil on a bipartisan basis. Lifting the
    restrictions on the export of crude oil encouraged additional
    domestic energy production, created American jobs, and economic
    development, and allowed the U.S. to emerge as the leading oil
    producer in the world.\10\ In 2019, the U.S. became a net
    exporter of petroleum products for the first time since 1952,
    and the reliance of the U.S. on foreign imports of petroleum
    products has declined to historic lows.\11\ Additionally, LNG
    and crude oil exports have played significant roles in lowering
    the U.S. trade deficit.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ICF, The Economic Benefits of Lifting the U.S. Crude Oil Export
    Ban: A Retrospective Analysis, API (July 2022), https://www.api.org//
    media/files/news/2022/07/25/economic-benefits-of-crude-oil-exports-
    retrospective.
        \11\Bill Sanchez, U.S. total energy exports exceed imports in 2019
    for the first time in 67 years, U.S. Energy Information Administration
    (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
    detail.php?id=43395#::text=In%202019%2C%20the%20United%20States%20conti
    nued
    %20to,coke%2C%20natural%20gas%2C%20
    petroleum%20products%2C%20and%20biomass.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        H.R. 1949 would remove restrictions on the import and
    export of natural gas, by eliminating the need for an applicant
    to apply to DOE for authorization to import or export the
    commodity. Under H.R. 1949, FERC would maintain exclusive
    authority to approve or deny an application for the siting,
    construction, operation, or expansion of a facility to import
    or export natural gas. The Committee does not intend for H.R.
    1949 to affect the existing FERC procedures to the review of
    the facility or change any standards for environmental or
    safety review. However, H.R. 1949 directs FERC to deem the
    export or import of natural gas to be consistent with the
    public interest. The Committee intends for the scope of FERC's
    review to be limited to the facility itself, and not to extend
    upstream or downstream beyond those effects that are direct or
    reasonably foreseeable.
        The Committee finds that free trade, open markets, and
    competition have contributed to the rise of the U.S. as a
    global energy superpower. The Committee expects that lifting
    restrictions on the import and export of natural gas would
    contribute to net economic benefits, increased natural gas
    production, and improved energy security and national security
    for the American people and partners around the world.

                                Committee Action

        On April 30, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
    legislative hearing on 14 pieces of legislation, including H.R.
    1949. The Subcommittee received testimony from:
               Mike Goff, Acting Undersecretary of Energy,
            U.S. Department of Energy;
               David L. Morenoff, Acting General Counsel,
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
               Terry Turpin, Director, Office of Energy
            Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
               Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer,
            National Rural Electric Cooperative Association;
               Amy Andryszak, President and Chief Executive
            Officer, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America;
               Todd A. Snitchler, President and Chief
            Executive Officer, Electric Power Supply Association
            and;
               Kim Smaczniak, Partner, Roselle LLP.
        On June 5, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy met in open
    markup session and forwarded H.R. 1949, without amendment, to
    the full Committee by a record vote of 15 yeas and 13 nays. On
    June 25, 2025, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in
    open markup session and ordered H.R. 1949, without amendment,
    favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 26 yeas and
    23 nays.

                                Committee Votes

        Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the
    record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
    thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during
    the Committee consideration:

                     Oversight Findings and Recommendations

        Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
    rule XIII, the Committee held hearings and made findings that
    are reflected in this report.

                 New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority,
                              and Tax Expenditures

        Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee
    finds that H.R. 1949 would result in no new or increased budget
    authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
    revenues.

                      Congressional Budget Office Estimate

        Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this
    report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
    the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available.

                           Federal Mandates Statement

        The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
    mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
    Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
    Act.

             Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

        Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
    performance goal or objective of this legislation is to remove
    restrictions on the import and export of U.S. LNG.

                        Duplication of Federal Programs

        Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of
    H.R. 1949 is known to be duplicative of another Federal
    program, including any program that was included in a report to
    Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the
    most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Related Committee and Subcommittee Hearings

        Pursuant to clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII, the following
    related hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 1949:
        On February 5, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
    hearing on H.R. 1949. The title of the hearing was ``Powering
    America's Future: Unleashing American Energy.'' The
    Subcommittee received testimony from:
               Amanda Eversole, Executive Vice President
            and Chief Advocacy Officer, American Petroleum
            Institute;
               Brigham McCown, Senior Fellow and Director,
            Initiative on American Energy Security, The Hudson
            Institute;
               Gary Arnold, Business Manager, Denver
            Pipefitters Local 208 and;
               Tyler O'Connor, Partner, Crowell & Moring
            LLP.
        On March 5, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing
    on H.R. 1949. The title of the hearing was ``Scaling for
    Growth: Meeting the Demand for Reliable, Affordable
    Electricity.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
               Todd Brickhouse, CEO and General Manager,
            Basin Electric Power Cooperative;
               Asim Haque, Senior Vice President for
            Governmental and Member Services, PJM;
               Noel W. Black, Senior VP of Regulatory
            Affairs, Southern Company and;
               Tyler H. Norris, James B. Duke Fellow, Duke
            University.
        On March 25, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
    hearing on H.R. 1949. The title of the hearing was ``Keeping
    the Lights On: Examining the State of Regional Grid
    Reliability.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
               Gordon van Welie, President and Chief
            Executive Officer, ISO New England;
               Richard J. Dewey, President and Chief
            Executive Officer, New York Independent System
            Operator;
               Manu Asthana, President and Chief Executive
            Officer, PJM Interconnection LLC;
               Jennifer Curran, Senior Vice President for
            Planning and Operations, Midcontinent ISO;
               Lanny Nickell, Chief Operating Officer,
            Southwest Power Pool;
               Elliot Mainzer, President and Chief
            Executive Officer, California Independent System
            Operator and;
               Pablo Vegas, President and Chief Executive
            Officer, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.
        On April 9, 2025, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held
    a full committee hearing on H.R. 1949. The title of the hearing
    was ``The Energy Needs for Advancing American Technological
    Leadership.'' The Committee received testimony from:
               Eric Schmidt, Chair, Special Competitive
            Studies Project;
               Manish Bhatia, Executive Vice President of
            Global Operations, Micron Technology;
               Alexander Wang, Founder and Chief Executive
            Officer, Scale AI, and;
               David Turk, Distinguished Visiting Fellow,
            Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University.
        On April 30, 2025, the Subcommittee on Energy held a
    legislative hearing on H.R. 1949. The title of the hearing was
    ``Assuring Abundant, Reliable American Energy to Power
    Innovation.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from:
               Mike Goff, Acting Undersecretary of Energy,
            U.S. Department of Energy;
               David L. Morenoff, Acting General Counsel,
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
               Terry Turpin, Director, Office of Energy
            Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
               Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer,
            National Rural Electric Cooperative Association;
               Amy Andryszak, President and Chief Executive
            Officer, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America;
               Todd A. Snitchler, President and Chief
            Executive Officer, Electric Power Supply Association
            and;
               Kim Smaczniak, Partner, Roselle LLP.

                            Committee Cost Estimate

        Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee
    adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
    the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974. At the time this report was
    filed, the estimate was not available.

           Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits

        Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the
    Committee finds that H.R. 1949 contains no earmarks, limited
    tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                          Advisory Committee Statement

        No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
    of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
    legislation.

                      Applicability to Legislative Branch

        The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
    the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
    services or accommodations within the meaning of section
    102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                 Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation

    Section 1. Short title

        Section 1 provides the short title of ``Unlocking Our
    Domestic LNG Potential Act.''

    Section 2. Advancing United States global leadership

        This section strikes the provisions within the Natural Gas
    Act that requires DOE to issue an authorization to export
    natural gas from the United States or import natural gas from a
    foreign country. This section clarifies that FERC shall have
    exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the
    siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a facility to
    import or export natural gas.
        This section requires FERC, in determining whether to
    approve or deny an application for a facility, to deem the
    export or import of the commodity, natural gas, to be
    consistent with the public interest. This section also contains
    a savings clause that clarifies nothing in the Act limits
    authorities under other laws to impose sanctions or restrict
    trade to a country that is designated as a state sponsor of
    terror.

             Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

      In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
    the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
    the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
    proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
    matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
    change is proposed is shown in roman):

                                NATURAL GAS ACT

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *
            exportation or importation of natural gas; lng terminals

      Sec. 3. [(a) After six months from the date on which this act
    takes effect no person shall export any natural gas from the
    United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas
    from a foreign country without first having secured an order of
    the Commission authorizing it to do so. The Commission shall
    issue such order upon application, unless, after opportunity
    for hearing, it finds that the proposed exportation or
    importation will not be consistent with the public interest.
    The Commission may by its order grant such application, in
    whole or in part, with such modification and upon such terms
    and conditions as the Commission may find necessary or
    appropriate, and may from time to time, after opportunity for
    hearing, and for good cause shown, make such supplemental order
    in the premises as it may find necessary or appropriate.
      [(b) With respect to natural gas which is imported into the
    United States from a nation with which there is in effect a
    free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in
    natural gas, and with respect to liquefied natural gas--
              [(1) the importation of such natural gas shall be
            treated as a ``first sale'' within the meaning of
            section 2(21) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978;
            and
              [(2) the Commission shall not, on the basis of
            national origin, treat any such imported natural gas on
            an unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or
            preferential basis.
      [(c) For purposes of subsection (a), the importation of the
    natural gas referred to in subsection (b), or the exportation
    of natural gas to a nation with which there is in effect a free
    trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in
    natural gas, shall be deemed to be consistent with the public
    interest, and applications for such importation or exportation
    shall be granted without modification or delay.
      [(e)(1) The Commission shall have the exclusive authority to
    approve or deny an application for the siting, construction,
    expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal. Except as
    specifically provided in this Act, nothing in this Act is
    intended to affect otherwise applicable law related to any
    Federal agency's authorities or responsibilities related to LNG
    terminals.]
      (a)(1) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (in this
    subsection referred to as the ``Commission'') shall have the
    exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for
    authorization for the siting, construction, expansion, or
    operation of a facility to export natural gas from the United
    States to a foreign country or import natural gas from a
    foreign country, including an LNG terminal. In determining
    whether to approve or deny an application under this paragraph,
    the Commission shall deem the exportation or importation of
    natural gas to be consistent with the public interest. Except
    as specifically provided in this Act, nothing in this Act is
    intended to affect otherwise applicable law related to any
    Federal agency's authorities or responsibilities related to
    facilities to import or export natural gas, including LNG
    terminals.
      (2) Upon the filing of any application to site, construct,
    expand, or operate an LNG terminal, the Commission shall--
              (A) set the matter for hearing;
              (B) give reasonable notice of the hearing to all
            interested persons, including the State commission of
            the State in which the LNG terminal is located and, if
            not the same, the Governor-appointed State agency
            described in section 3A;
              (C) decide the matter in accordance with this
            subsection; and
              (D) issue or deny the appropriate order accordingly.
      (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Commission
    may approve an application described in paragraph (2), in whole
    or part, with such modifications and upon such terms and
    conditions as the Commission find necessary or appropriate.
      (B) Before January 1, 2015, the Commission shall not--
              (i) deny an application solely on the basis that the
            applicant proposes to use the LNG terminal exclusively
            or partially for gas that the applicant or an affiliate
            of the applicant will supply to the facility; or
              (ii) condition an order on--
                      (I) a requirement that the LNG terminal offer
                    service to customers other than the applicant,
                    or any affiliate of the applicant, securing the
                    order;
                      (II) any regulation of the rates, charges,
                    terms, or conditions of service of the LNG
                    terminal; or
                      (III) a requirement to file with the
                    Commission schedules or contracts related to
                    the rates, charges, terms, or conditions of
                    service of the LNG terminal.
      (C) Subparagraph (B) shall cease to have effect on January 1,
    2030.
      (4) An order issued for an LNG terminal that also offers
    service to customers on an open access basis shall not result
    in subsidization of expansion capacity by existing customers,
    degradation of service to existing customers, or undue
    discrimination against existing customers as to their terms or
    conditions of service at the facility, as all of those terms
    are defined by the Commission.
      [(f)] (b)(1) In this subsection, the term ``military
    installation''--
              (A) means a base, camp, post, range, station, yard,
            center, or homeport facility for any ship or other
            activity under the jurisdiction of the Department of
            Defense, including any leased facility, that is located
            within a State, the District of Columbia, or any
            territory of the United States; and
              (B) does not include any facility used primarily for
            civil works, rivers and harbors projects, or flood
            control projects, as determined by the Secretary of
            Defense.
      (2) The Commission shall enter into a memorandum of
    understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of
    ensuring that the Commission coordinate and consult with the
    Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or
    operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect
    an active military installation.
      (3) The Commission shall obtain the concurrence of the
    Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting,
    construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas
    facilities affecting the training or activities of an active
    military installation.
      [(d)] (c) Except as specifically provided in this Act,
    nothing in this Act affects the rights of States under--
              (1) the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16
            U.S.C. 1451 et seq.);
              (2) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); or
              (3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
            U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
      (d)(1) Nothing in this Act limits the authority of the
    President under the Constitution, the International Emergency
    Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
    Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), part B of title II of
    the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6271 et
    seq.), the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
    or any other provision of law that imposes sanctions on a
    foreign person or foreign government (including any provision
    of law that prohibits or restricts United States persons from
    engaging in a transaction with a sanctioned person or
    government), including a country that is designated as a state
    sponsor of terrorism, to prohibit imports or exports.
      (2) In this subsection, the term ``state sponsor of
    terrorism'' means a country the government of which the
    Secretary of State determines has repeatedly provided support
    for international terrorism pursuant to--
              (A) section 1754(c)(1)(A) of the Export Control
            Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4318(c)(1)(A));
              (B) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of
            1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371);
              (C) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
            U.S.C. 2780); or
              (D) any other provision of law.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                 MINORITY VIEWS

        H.R. 1949 would automatically deem exports of natural gas
    ``to be consistent with the public interest'' and would remove
    any ability for the Department of Energy (DOE) to review
    natural gas exports to nations the United States lacks a free
    trade agreement with. The bill would increase costs for
    American families and cede an ``energy dominance'' agenda to
    China.
        The Committee has repeatedly heard testimony that
    unfettered exports of liquified natural gas (LNG) would
    increase the price of both natural gas and electricity. In a
    hearing in 2023, Tyson Slocum, Energy Program Director at
    Public Citizen, testified that increased LNG exports have put
    upward pressure on the price Americans pay for heating and
    power. He also testified that incremental LNG exports would
    further tie American natural gas prices to international
    natural gas prices, exposing Americans to increased volatility
    and uncertainty in prices.\1\ The Committee heard similar
    testimony a year later, when Gillian Giannetti, Senior Attorney
    at the Natural Resources Defense Council, stated that ``LNG
    exports increase domestic energy prices and price
    volatility.''\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Testimony of Tyson
    Slocum, Director of the Energy Program, Public Citizen, Hearing on
    Unleashing American Energy, Lowering Energy Costs, and Strengthening
    Supply Chains, 118th Cong. (Feb. 7, 2023).
        \2\House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Testimony of Gillian
    Giannetti, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, Hearing
    on Politics Over People: How Biden's LNG Export Ban Threatens America's
    Energy and Economic Security, 118th Cong. (Feb. 6, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DOE also has published materials underscoring testimony
    received by the Committee. In 2023, the Energy Information
    Administration stated that ``. . . higher LNG exports create a
    tighter domestic natural gas market (all else held equal),
    increasing domestic natural gas prices. Because of these two
    relationships, as the United States exports more LNG, the
    spread between domestic natural gas prices and international
    LNG prices eventually declines . . .''\3\ Secretary of Energy
    Jennifer Granholm concurred, writing that ``. . . unfettered
    exports of LNG would increase wholesale domestic natural gas
    prices by over 30%. Unconstrained exports of LNG would increase
    costs for the average American household by well over $100 more
    per year . . .''\4\ The evidence is clear: unrestricted LNG
    exports would increase energy prices for Americans, on top of
    the nearly $300 in higher energy bills imposed by Republicans'
    Big Ugly Bill.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\Energy Information Administration, Issues in Focus: Effects of
    Liquified Natural Gas Exports on the U.S. Natural Gas Market (May,
    2023).
        \4\Department of Energy, Statement from U.S. Secretary of Energy
    Jennifer M. Granholm on Updated Final Analyses (Dec. 16, 2024).
        \5\Princeton University ZERO Lab, Impacts of the One Big Beautiful
    Bill on the U.S. Energy Transition--Summary Report (July 3, 2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, that is not all that unregulated LNG exports would
    do. The legislative record developed during Committee
    proceedings on the bill makes clear that the bill's
    restrictions on sending LNG to sanctioned entities or entities
    covered by several statutes (the Emergency Economic Powers Act,
    the National Emergencies Act, the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act) would not
    currently apply to LNG exports to China. Since 2018, American
    LNG exporters have signed 20 long term agreements with Chinese
    purchasers of LNG--including from projects still subject to
    DOE's public interest determination that H.R. 1949 seeks to
    eliminate.\6\ If, as Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) believes,
    that ``Losing the race for AI to China is the equivalent of
    losing the Cold War to the Soviet Union,'' then allowing China
    access to American energy resources could prove calamitous.\7\
    Energy Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL)
    attempted to remedy this defect in the bill by offering an
    amendment that would have restored the public interest
    determination requirement for LNG exports to China. It was
    defeated on a party-line vote, with every Republican present
    voting against the amendment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\Center for Strategic & International Studies, US-China Trade War
    and the Future of U.S. LNG (Apr. 29, 2025) (https://www.csis.org/
    analysis/us-china-trade-war-and-future-us-lng).
        \7\Congressman Brett Guthrie (@CongressmanGuthrie), Facebook (Aug.
    22, 2025, 3:21 PM) (https://www.facebook.com/CongressmanGuthrie/posts/
    losing-the-race-for-ai-to-china-is-the-
    equivalent-of-losing-the-cold-war-to-the-/13052792 00982898/).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, the majority's report notes that ``The Committee
    finds that free trade, open markets, and competition have
    contributed to the rise of the U.S. as a global energy
    superpower. The Committee expects that lifting restrictions on
    the import and export of natural gas would contribute to net
    economic benefits, increased natural gas production, and
    improved energy security and national security for the American
    people and partners around the world.'' Yet, the Trump
    Administration has imposed a ten percent tariff on imports of
    natural gas from Canada and Mexico that is increasing costs on
    American families in the Northeast and Northwest.\8\ Committee
    Democrats have pushed back against the Administration's illegal
    efforts to increase prices on Americans. Republicans should
    start to do the same.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\Natural Gas Intelligence, Tariff Threats Cast Spotlight on U.S.
    Northeast-Canada Natural Gas Supply Relations, Prices--The Outlook (May
    2, 2025) (https://naturalgasintel.com/news/
    tariff-threats-cast-spotlight-on-us-northeast-canada-natural-gas-
    supply-relations-prices-the-
    outlook/).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the reasons stated above, I oppose this legislation.

                                             Frank Pallone, Jr.
                                                        Ranking Member.