This briefing contains an overview of the corporate lobbying detected by InfluenceMap related to fossil fuels in January 2024.
Global: Biden's temporary pause on LNG export permits faces global opposition from oil and gas giants, citing concerns over European energy security and Russian gas dependence.
United States: Utilities, led by Edison Electric Institute, push for eased environmental assessments on non-renewable projects, endorsing broader categorical exclusions, notably for fossil fuel infrastructure, in response to DOE proposals.
This briefing contains an overview of the corporate lobbying detected by InfluenceMap related to fossil fuels for the month of December 2023.
At the beginning of the new year, several oil and gas industry groups in the US and abroad raised concern amidst reports of a potential suspension of new LNG projects by the Biden administration. On January 26th, the Biden Administration confirmed these speculations by announcing a temporary pause in approving liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits. Consequently, new approvals for pending LNG export projects, including the CP2 Louisiana LNG project, were put on hold until the Department of Energy can review its public interest analysis, and consider the climate and economic impacts of new LNG projects.
The oil and gas industry, including US LNG developers, voiced concern over the halt, consistently emphasizing narratives around the danger the pause poses to European energy security and how US LNG would decrease Europe's dependence on Russian fossil gas. Industry opposition to the pause is misaligned with the science-based policy recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More details are highlighted below:
PAGE Coalition Opposes LNG Export Pause: The PAGE Coalition, consisting of Williams, Enbridge, EQT Energy, and TC Energy, submitted a January 19th letter to President Biden a week before the announcement advocating against any form of moratorium on new LNG exports approvals, again referencing the war in Ukraine and the need to alleviate Europe's dependence on Russian gas. PAGE also referenced the UAE consensus from COP28, which states that “transitional fuels” will play an important role in the energy transition. Following the announcement, the PAGE coalition responded to the news with a press release, strongly opposing the administration's decision to pause LNG export permits, emphasizing energy security concerns in Europe and the need to wean the continent off Russian gas.
US Chamber Opposes LNG Export Pause: In a 24th January blog post prior to the official announcement, the Chamber opposed pausing LNG exports, arguing that the continuation and expansion of US LNG exports to Europe would help overcome the leverage that Russian fossil gas has on the region. The post argued that US LNG is the cleaner alternative to not just coal, but Russian fossil gas.
API, US Chamber of Commerce, and Others Decry Permit Pause: In a January 24 joint letter submitted to the US Energy Secretary, the American Petroleum Institute (API), US Chamber of Commerce, and American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC) claimed that the move was “undermining global climate goals,” citing the need for fossil gas in coal-to-gas switching. In a press release, the American Gas Association also opposed the decision to halt pending LNG export permits.
Edison Electric CEO expresses opposition: In both a LinkedIn post and a January 26th video interview with Fox Business, Edison Electric Institute’s new CEO Dan Brouillette opposed the pause, suggesting that it would harm European and Asian allies and stating that “it's hard to understand how this might be a step in the right direction with regards to emissions.”
EQT CEO Testifies before House Committee: EQT CEO Toby Rice, a member of the PAGE coalition, sent a January 30th letter to Energy Secretary Granholm opposing the pause. Rice then testified before a February 7th House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing entitled “Politics over People: How Biden’s LNG Export Ban Threatens America’s Energy and Economic Security.”
Several international fossil fuel groups united with major US entities to push back on the decision.
Major Global Fossil Fuel Groups Criticize Decision: Notable global opposition to the LNG export permits pause also came from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Business Europe and Eurogas, representing the Canadian petroleum industry, European businesses, and European energy companies, respectively. BusinessEurope and the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) also signed a joint letter submitted by the US Chamber of Commerce to President Biden opposing the administration's decision. The letter stressed the importance of alleviating both European and Japanese dependence on Russian fossil gas. InfluenceMap's analysis consistently reveals that cross-sector groups tend to align with the fossil fuel industry on climate advocacy, rather than the corporate sector.
InfluenceMap's ongoing research into the climate policy engagement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds a continuing trend of positive climate-related PR, creating the impression of reform on the issue, despite the group's continued opposition to key legislation and regulation introduced by the fed...
International Coalition Urges Reconsideration: In another joint letter to President Biden, an international coalition of trade associations consisting of the AXPC, American Institute of Petroleum (API), Asia Natural Gas and Energy Association (ANGEA), Eurogas, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), the International Gas Union, and the US Chamber of Commerce called on the administration to reconsider the decision to pause LNG export permits.
The IPCC suggests reducing fossil fuels in power generation to meet the 1.5°C goal for limiting warming. IPCC guidance entails transitioning to low-carbon energy sources and curbing non-CO2 GHG emissions like methane. On February 8th, the DOE released an article responding to industry opposition, stressing the need to better understand the substantial greenhouse gas emissions – particularly methane – that result from LNG production and transportation before approving more export permits. The DOE statement emphasized the noteworthy rise in export capacity since 2018, reiterating the need for a thorough understanding of impacts before granting additional permits.
Edison Electric Institute and investor-owned utilities are advocating for less stringent environmental impact analyses for non-renewable energy projects in recent comments submitted to the US Department of Energy (DOE). The comments responded to the DOE’s notice of proposed rulemaking to change its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures, which closed for comment in mid-January 2024.
In its proposal, the DOE made amendments to its categorical exclusion determinations under NEPA. These allow certain federal agency projects to proceed without providing detailed environmental analyses (i.e., an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement) if the project belongs to a category determined to have no significant environmental impact. The DOE proposed revising existing categorical exclusions for transmission upgrades and solar energy projects and created a new category for certain battery storage systems, specifically electrochemical-battery or flywheel energy storage systems.
While none of the utilities or industry groups listed below objected to these amendments, InfluenceMap analysis finds that they pushed for categorical exclusion categories to include infrastructure that bolsters fossil fuels. This advocacy for permitting reform to prolong fossil fuel use and delay the energy transition is a pattern that InfluenceMap has been tracking, both on its platform page and in its November 2023 newsletter, on the fossil fuel industry’s response to the NEPA Phase 2 revisions.
This briefing contains an overview of the corporate advocacy detected by InfluenceMap related to fossil fuels and climate for the month of October 2023.
Edison Electric Institute requests exclusions for hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects: In its comments, EEI called upon the DOE to extend categorical exclusions for CCUS and hydrogen, including hydrogen pipelines and floating hydrogen produced alongside wind and tidal energy installations to “enhance the clean energy production potential of offshore projects.” The group also cited the need to support the hydrogen hubs authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law; however, given that several of the initially selected hydrogen hubs – announced by the DOE in October 2023 – include fossil gas as feedstocks, this advocacy leaves the door open for hydrogen produced from fossil fuels. In seemingly contradictory messaging, EEI further emphasized that permit exclusions for hydrogen and CCS are necessary to comply with the EPA’s draft power plant rules, a proposal that includes CCS and hydrogen pathways to reduce power plant GHG emissions and that EEI has strongly opposed.
Business Roundtable advocates for a broader definition of categorical exclusions: In its comments, Business Roundtable urged the DOE to broaden the list of categorical exclusions “to the maximum extent possible” as a means to ensure “adequate, reliable, and affordable sources of energy.” The group did not specify the types of energy projects it wanted the DOE to include.
Utilities and American Clean Power Association call for expanding categorical exclusions to include fossil gas storage and alternative gases: The Cross-Cutting Issues Group – whose utility signatories include AES, Alliant, Dominion, Duke, Energy, Evergy, PPL Corp subsidiaries Louis Gas and Electric and Kentucky Utilities, Southern Company, and Vistra – submitted comments that argued for the DOE to add new categorical exclusions for hydrogen pipelines, renewable natural gas, and CCUS projects without specifying any conditions around production methods or intended use for these alternative fuels. Alliant submitted individual comments that similarly called for the DOE to broaden its energy storage category so that above-ground compressed fossil gas storage projects could be expedited. Comments by the American Clean Power Association also appeared to advocate for a broader energy storage category that included above-ground compressive gas storage technologies.
On January 8th, the Environment Minister for Victoria blocked the government plan to build a new wind turbine plant at the Port of Hastings. The Minister stated that the proposed project would damage large areas of wetland, with “clearly unacceptable” impacts. Following the news, several oil and gas industry representatives used the decision on the wind turbine plant as an opportunity to oppose Victoria’s recent ban on new gas connections and promote fossil fuels.
The CEO of the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association, Steve Davies, wrote an Op-ed for the Australian Financial Review the following day, January 9th, in which he opposed the Victorian government’s strategy to phase-out fossil gas, while also criticizing the federal government's decision to exclude fossil gas from the Capacity Investment Scheme, a policy designed to encourage new investment in renewable capacity.
The CEOs of EnergyAustralia and APA Group, Mark Collette and Adam Watson, were quoted in a January 9th article in The Australian in which they both supported the role of fossil gas. Collette stressed concerns around potential gas shortages, while Watson criticized the “demonizing” of fossil gas and stressed the need to “prioritize unlocking new gas projects.”
