Texas Legislative Committee Proposes Ways to Protect, Expand LNG Industry

“the Biden Administration’s federal permitting pause during a presidential election year appears to be purely political in nature and an attempt to disrupt Texas’ booming economy, now the eighth largest economy in the world…. it is abundantly clear American LNG is in the best interest of the Texas economy, local communities, our national security, and global energy security.”

A state legislative committee is proposing ways to expand Texas’ liquified natural gas (LNG) industry after the Biden administration announced it was pausing pending applications for LNG exports that would significantly impact Texas.

The Texas House Select Committee on Protecting Texas LNG Exports issued its findings after holding a hearing on the topic earlier this month. Led by state Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, the report states, “the Biden Administration’s federal permitting pause during a presidential election year appears to be purely political in nature and an attempt to disrupt Texas’ booming economy, now the eighth largest economy in the world.

“It has caused long-term uncertainty for both investors and allied nations around the world relying on American energy, particularly in Europe as they seek to wean themselves off Russian natural gas. After multiple studies across Democratic and Republican presidential administrations, it is abundantly clear American LNG is in the best interest of the Texas economy, local communities, our national security, and global energy security.”

House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, created the select committee and charged it with evaluating the impact on the Texas LNG industry and to propose actions the state legislature could take in the next legislative session to protect it.

Phelan’s district is critical to the oil and natural gas industry. It encompasses a region known as the “Golden Triangle,” rich in oil and natural gas production, processing, refining and exports in the southeast towns of Beaumont, Port Arthur and Orange. It includes a key LNG export terminal currently under construction in Port Arthur, where several LNG facilities are also located.

The LNG terminal, once completed and operational, is expected to have an export capacity of 13 million tons a year. With access to the Gulf of Mexico through the Sabine-Neches ship channel, it represents a $13 billion investment in new energy infrastructure, the report states.

The U.S. leads the world in LNG exports, led by the Gulf states of Texas and Louisiana. In 2017, the U.S. became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since 1957, “primarily because of increased LNG exports,” according to the EIA. The U.S. became a net exporter after Cheniere Energy was the first to export domestically sourced LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and from the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas, The Center Square first reported.

Nearly 25% of U.S. natural gas reserves are located in Texas and 30% of the largest hundred natural gas fields in the U.S. are in Texas, the legislative report notes, citing state data. It also identifies six LNG facilities nationwide that would be impacted by the ban, including two in Texas, in Port Arthur and Corpus Christi.

Texas ports, including Port Arthur and Corpus Christi, are among the top ports in the U.S. leading in foreign trade impact, and the Port of Corpus Christi continues to break records in tonnage, primarily due to oil and LNG exports, The Center Square reported.

Texas Oil & Gas Association Chief Economist Dean Foreman, who testified before the committee, said, “Texas and Louisiana bear the brunt of short-sighted federal policies that jeopardize LNG export projects, representing potential investments of $200 billion across the value chain, including a projected 20% increase in Texas’ dry natural gas production.

“The reasons given for this pause – concerns about higher domestic natural gas prices, emissions, and community impacts – are clearly unfounded. U.S. LNG exports have responded to global demand, driving domestic innovation that enhances productivity and reduces consumer costs. LNG has replaced coal in power generation, emerging as a primary driver of emission reductions, and have catalyzed economic growth across the Gulf Coast. On all accounts, U.S. LNG exports have proven to be decisively beneficial.”

Two key claims the administration made for implementing the ban (LNG exports increase domestic energy costs and increase methane emissions) have been refuted, The Center Square first reported. A bipartisan coalition of Texas’ congressional delegation called on the president “to refocus on policies that support US LNG,” understanding that Texas is the energy capital of the United States, The Center Square reported. Sixteen states, led by Louisiana and Texas, also sued, arguing the ban is illegal.

The committee recommended that the legislature “consider legislation and policies authorizing the governor to develop and execute an interstate compact with the goal of sharing state information, resources, and services with other interested states seeking to protect and grow the LNG industry along the Gulf Coast.”

It also recommends that the legislature propose legislation and policies to permit temporary eligibility of LNG facility construction grants and loans when federal permitting pauses occur; provide economic incentives for LNG facilities to counter market consequences of a federal permitting pause; reform specific permitting regulations and increase overall permitting process efficiency; expand funding for project construction and development through the Texas Department of Transportation’s Maritime Infrastructure Program; increase workforce grants made available through local colleges to meet workforce demands for construction and facility operations; and mandate that official reports be published every year providing data on the “relevance and importance of the LNG industry regarding the public interest.”

Bethany Blankley is a contributor at The Center Square.

Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.

Related Topics:#BethanyBlankley #BidenLNGPermitPause #HeartlandPetrochemicalComplex #LNGExpansion #TexasLNG #TheCenterSquare

Up Next

Attempted break in at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia by illegal immigrant and Jordanian on expired student visa

Don't Miss

‘Amateur Hour’: Biden Admin’s Floating Gaza Pier Problems Go From Bad To Worse

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

illegal immigration / 13 mins ago

Trump directs feds to target cartels that threaten homeland security

Business / 1 hour ago

Debunking the myth of the ‘new economy’

Daily Caller

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47^th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.

To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.

But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.

In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.

Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.

As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”

Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.

But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”

This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.

The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Business

Debunking the myth of the ‘new economy’

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

Where the money comes from isn’t hard to see – if you look at the facts

In British Columbia, the economy is sometimes discussed through the lens of a “new economy” focused on urbanization, high-tech innovation, and creative industries. However, this perspective frequently overlooks the foundational role that the province’s natural resource industries play in generating the income that fuels public services, infrastructure, and daily life.

The Economic Reality

British Columbia’s economy is highly urbanized, with 85% of the population living in urban areas as of the 2021 Census, concentrated primarily in the Lower Mainland and the Capital Regional District.
These metropolitan regions contribute significantly to economic activity, particularly in population-serving sectors like retail, healthcare, and education. However, much of the province’s income—what we call the “first dollar”—originates in the non-metropolitan resource regions.

Natural resources remain the backbone of British Columbia’s economy. Industries such as forestry, mining, energy, and agriculture generate export revenue that flows into the provincial economy, supporting urban and rural communities alike. These sectors are not only vital for direct employment but also underpin metropolitan economic activities through the export income they generate.

They also pay taxes, fees, royalties, and more to governments, thus supporting public services and programs.

Exports: The Tap Filling the Economic Bathtub

The analogy of a bathtub aptly describes the provincial economy:

Exports are the water entering the tub, representing income from goods and services sold outside the province.
Imports are the water draining out, as money leaves the province to purchase external goods and services.
The population-serving sector circulates water within the tub, but it depends entirely on the level of water maintained by exports.

In British Columbia, international exports have historically played a critical role. In 2022, the province exported $56 billion worth of goods internationally, led by forestry products, energy, and minerals. While metropolitan areas may handle the logistics and administration of these exports, the resources themselves—and the wealth they generate—are predominantly extracted and processed in rural and resource-rich regions.

Metropolitan Contributions and Limitations

Although metropolitan regions like Vancouver and Victoria are often seen as economic powerhouses, they are not self-sustaining engines of growth. These cities rely heavily on income generated by resource exports, which enable the public services and infrastructure that support urban living. Without the wealth generated in resource regions, the urban economy would struggle to maintain its standard of living.

For instance, while tech and creative industries are growing in prominence, they remain a smaller fraction of the provincial economy compared to traditional resource industries. The resource sectors accounted for nearly 9% of provincial GDP in 2022, while the tech sector contributed approximately 7%.

Moreover, resource exports are critical for maintaining a positive trade balance, ensuring that the “economic bathtub” remains full.

A Call for Balanced Economic Policy

Policymakers and urban leaders must recognize the disproportionate contribution of British Columbia’s resource regions to the provincial economy. While urban areas drive innovation and service-based activities, these rely on the income generated by resource exports. Efforts to increase taxation or regulatory burdens on resource industries risk undermining the very foundation of provincial prosperity.

Furthermore, metropolitan regions should actively support resource-based industries through partnerships, infrastructure development, and advocacy. A balanced economic strategy—rooted in both urban and resource region contributions—is essential to ensure long-term sustainability and equitable growth across British Columbia.

At least B.C. Premier David Eby has begun to promise that “a new responsible, sustainable development of natural resources will be a core focus of our government,” and has told resource leaders that “Our government will work with you to eliminate unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic processes.” Those leaders await the results.

Conclusion

British Columbia’s prosperity is deeply interconnected, with urban centres and resource regions playing complementary roles. However, the evidence is clear: the resource sectors, particularly in the northern half of the province, remain the primary engines of economic growth. Acknowledging and supporting these industries is not only fair but also critical to sustaining the provincial economy and the public services that benefit all British Columbians.