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

Strongest hurricane in 174 years makes landfall in Jamaica

Opinion / 5 hours ago

British Columbians protest Trump while Eby brings their province to its knees

Business / 6 hours ago

Canada has given $109 million to Communist China for ‘sustainable development’ since 2015

Business

Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder

Published on October 28, 2025

Todayville

Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada

A shift in ambition

A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, President and Chief Operating Officer at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.

“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”

With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”

Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”

At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”

Fixing the system to move forward

Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”

He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”

Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”

Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”

He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”

Business

Clean energy transition price tag over $150 billion and climbing, with very little to show for it

Published on October 28, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss, Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari, Karen Graham and Jock Finlayson

Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have spent (or foregone revenues) of at least $158 billion to create at most 68,000 “clean” jobs since 2014

Despite the hype of a “clean” economic transition, governments in Ottawa and in the four largest provinces have spent or foregone revenues of more than $150 billion (inflation-adjusted) on low-carbon initiatives since 2014/15, but have only created, at best, 68,000 clean jobs, according to two new studies published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Governments, activists and special interest groups have been making a lot of claims about the opportunities of a clean economic transition, but after a decade of policy interventions and more than $150 billion in taxpayers’ money, the results are
extremely underwhelming,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director of natural resource studies and co-author of The Fiscal Cost of Canada’s Low-Carbon Economy.

The study finds that since 2014/15, the federal government and provincial governments in the country’s four largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia) combined have spent and foregone revenues of $158 billion (inflation adjusted to 2024 dollars) trying to create clean jobs, as defined by Statistics Canada’s Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account.

Importantly, that cost estimate is conservative since it does not account for an exhaustive list of direct government spending and it does not measure the costs from Canada’s other six provinces, municipalities, regulatory costs and other economic
costs because of the low-carbon spending and tax credits.

A second study, Sizing Canada’s Clean Economy, finds that there was very little change over the 2014 to 2023 period in terms of the share of the total economy represented by the clean economy. For instance, in 2014, the clean economy represented 3.1 per cent of GDP compared to 3.6 per cent in 2023.

“The evidence is clear—the much-hyped clean economic transition has failed to fundamentally transform Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy,” said study co-author and Fraser Institute senior fellow Jock Finlayson.

State of the Green Economy

The Fiscal Cost of Canada’s Low-Carbon Economy documents spending initiatives by the federal government and the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec since 2014 to promote the low-carbon economy, as well as how much revenue they have foregone through offering tax credits.
Overall, the combined cost of spending and tax credits supporting a low-carbon economy by the federal government and the four provincial governments is estimated at $143.6 billion from 2014–15 to 2024–25, in nominal terms. When adjusted for inflation, the total reaches $158 billion in 2024 dollars.
These estimates are based on very conservative assumptions, and they do not cover every program area or government-controlled expenditure related to the low-carbon economy and/or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Sizing Canada’s Green Economy assesses the composition, growth, share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) output, and employment of Canada’s “clean economy” from 2014 to 2023.
Canada’s various environmental and clean technology industries collectively have accounted for between 3.07% and 3.62% of all-industry GDP over the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023. While it has grown, the sector as a whole has not been expanding at a pace that meaningfully exceeds the growth of the overall Canadian economy, despite significant policy attention and mounting public subsidies.
The clean economy represents a respectable and relatively stable share of Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy. However, it remains a small part of Canada’s broader industrial mix, it is not a major source of export earnings, and it is not about to supplant the many other industries that underpin the country’s prosperity and dominate its international exports.