Assistant energy secretary claims multiple reports justify LNG pause

In the United States, recent hearings held by House Republicans raised allegations against the federal government regarding its handling of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export reports. During these hearings, Rep. Pat Fallon expressed frustration over the lack of access to documents that could potentially support the claims that the Administration had met with social media influencers advocating for stricter climate policies prior to the LNG export ban. Reports surfaced that the Department of Energy (DOE) failed to provide over 97 documents, comprising 4,354 pages of analyses concerning LNG, despite requests over the past year, resulting in accusations that vital information was intentionally withheld to align with a political narrative favorable to the Biden administration. Assistant U.S. Secretary of Energy, Brad Crabtree, denied any knowledge of the existence of the purported LNG export study that many believed was buried within the DOE. There are ongoing claims from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the Administration utilized a non-peer-reviewed 2023 study to justify the suspension of LNG exports, while discarding analyses from reputable sources. This has raised significant concerns regarding transparency and the legitimacy of the information utilized in policy-making processes. Further complicating matters, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has been adamant about a draft study that was set to be released by late 2024, with a final version expected by February 2025. Nonetheless, the suspension of LNG export permits appears slated to end on January 20, 2025, coinciding with the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has made it a priority to reverse such bans on his first day in office. During his campaign, Trump promises to carry out multiple executive orders aimed at rolling back regulations that he believes hinder U.S. energy production. In another dimension, the hearings have also sparked discussions surrounding the involvement of social media influencers in policymaking, raising questions about foreign influence and the credibility of these influences on serious energy issues. Critics of this situation, including Democrats, argue that the uproar appears politically motivated, as they express surprise at Republicans now being concerned with social media's role in governmental matters. The absence of John Podesta, a senior adviser for climate issues, during this hearing further fueled discontent among those questioning the interactions that might have occurred between the White House and outside activists, including those from social media platforms like TikTok.