From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Nick Pope

Forty-five GOP lawmakers are demanding answers from the Department of Energy (DOE) after a government watchdog group accused the agency of covering up a key study that would have interfered with one of the Biden-Harris administration’s most aggressive crackdowns on fossil fuels.

The lawmakers wrote to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Thursday to address a watchdog’s allegations that her agency conducted or drafted — and then quietly buried — a study on the emissions impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in 2023 before pausing approvals for certain LNG export terminals in January on the grounds that the agency needed to conduct such a review. Government Accountability and Oversight (GAO), the watchdog making the allegations, is suing the agency under public records law to obtain the thousands of pages DOE concedes may fit GAO’s specific request searching for the 2023 study that the agency allegedly buried because it was producing politically inconvenient conclusions, as first reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The Biden-Harris Administration’s attempt to conceal its findings on liquefied natural gas impacts is troubling. Despite evidence that U.S. LNG benefits both the economy and global energy security, the Department of Energy has imposed an indefinite ban on LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries without legal justification,” Republican Texas Rep. August Pfluger, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “The lack of transparency from DOE on existing studies, as well as the motivation behind the ongoing study, is unacceptable. The American people deserve accountability on the decision-making process surrounding our energy future.”

DOE Letter re: LNG studies, GAO accusations by Nick Pope on Scribd

If GAO’s allegations are ultimately substantiated, the Biden-Harris administration effectively misled the public in an election year to set up a policy that hurts American geopolitical interests and disincentivizes investment in major energy projects. However, the deep-pocketed environmentalist lobby aligning with Democrats in the 2024 election cycle celebrated the policy.

The lawmakers’ letter specifically asks Granholm to clarify whether the agency conducted any analysis of LNG exports’ emissions impacts before the Jan. 26 announcement of the freeze on approvals for LNG export terminals seeking to ship gas to non-free trade agreement (FTA) countries. The legislators also asked Granholm to detail whether top DOE officials or White House personnel ever received updates about such an analysis, even if preliminary, in the first ten months of 2023, as well as whether the agency still intends to publish its findings in January 2025.

“DOE is in receipt of this letter and is reviewing it,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “DOE’s process to update the analyses that informs its review of applications to authorize exports of US natural gas to non-free trade agreement countries is well underway. When the updated analyses are ready, we will publish them for the public to review and provide comment.”

The lawmakers gave Granholm until Nov. 8 to respond to their inquiry. Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Lance Gooden of Texas and Buddy Carter of Georgia joined Pfluger as signatories, among others.

Notably, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee sent its own letter to Granholm on Wednesday demanding answers about the same exact issue.

From Canadians for Affordable Energy

Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream. 

At this point, everyone in Canada has heard about the Carbon Tax and had a chance to experience its negative effects. But less has been said about another harmful policy dreamed up by the Trudeau government — the Emissions Cap on the oil and gas sector. Just like the Carbon Tax, the Emissions Cap is part of Trudeau’s larger program to try and achieve “Net Zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, which will have no positive impact on the environment, but which will be ruinous to Canada’s natural resource sector and to the national economy.

In their 2021 platform, the Liberals made a commitment to “cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector” and proclaimed that that industry must reduce emissions “at a pace and scale needed to achieve net-zero by 2050.” As promised, in December 2023 the Trudeau government proposed an Emissions Cap to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. Keep in mind Canada contributes only 1.5% of global emissions, so this plan, even if accomplished, would reduce global emissions by less than one half of one percent.

Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream. After all, the oil and gas industry generates $45 billion per year in annual economic activity, and contributes $170 billion per year to the GDP.

But don’t take my word for it. According to a Deloitte report commissioned by the Government of Alberta, an Emissions Cap would lead to a 10% decrease in Alberta’s oil production and a 16% decrease in conventional natural gas production. Fossil fuel production would decrease in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland as well. Other industries connected to the oil and gas sector such as the mining, refinery products, and utilities are also expected to be impacted and will experience a decrease in output in Alberta and the rest of Canada.

The report goes on to state that in 2040 “Alberta’s GDP is estimated to be lower by 4.5% and Canada’s GDP by 1.0% compared to the baseline.”

It notes that because it is assumed that “the Cap is a permanent measure, the shift in the output of the oil and gas sector and associated losses are permanent and accumulate over time. Cumulatively, over the 2030 to 2040 period, we estimate that real GDP in Alberta is $191 billion lower and real GDP in the Rest of Canada is $91 billion lower, compared to the baseline scenario ($2017 dollars).”

Of course, the environmentalists will crow that the oil and gas industry is dying anyway and the demand for oil and gas around the world is slowly decreasing, but this is simply not true.

Global demand for oil and gas is only growing and will continue to do so. According to the report, “Based on current policy and before the impact of the Cap, we expect: Oil production in Canada to increase by 27% by 2030 and 32% by 2040 from 2021 levels; and Gas production in Canada to increase by 10% by 2030 and 16% by 2040 from 2021 levels.”

And this isn’t the only study which projects negative outcomes from this policy. The Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) released a study which describes how the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap for the energy sector would “cost the Canadian economy between $44.8 billion and $79.3 billion a year” and would “cause substantial losses, without achieving any net reduction in global emission.”

You can read the study here.

Plus it is worth noting that this emissions cap will result in “substantial losses without achieving any net reduction in global emissions.”

Why? Because of the increase in global demands for oil and gas, we can either produce those resources here or get them from another country that has no environmental, much less labour standards, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.

To add insult to injury for the oil and gas producing provinces, and as I’ve pointed out in the past, this cap on emissions would apply only to the oil and gas sector. This emissions cap would not apply to the concrete industry, the automotive industry, or the mining industry. And — surprise surprise — it certainly won’t apply to Montreal’s lucrative jet-building industry.

But take heed: this isn’t simply an Alberta issue. This is a Canadian issue and one that everyone in Canada should be concerned about.

The umbrella of Net Zero by 2050 is large and far reaching, and an emissions cap is simply one part of a multi-layered attack on our economy and way of life. Carbon taxes, layered on top of a Clean Fuel Standard, layered on top of pipeline blockages, layered on top of Bills C-48 and C-69, preventing oil from being shipped from other parts of the world — will run counter to our national interests, and endanger the Canadian way of life for generations to come.

If Canadians are now vehemently opposed to carbon taxes, as we suggested would be the case half a dozen years ago, wait for this unnecessary burden to befall them.

In the words made famous by the Canadian rock legend BTO, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.