[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.