Take Action Publications Press Room About Public Citizen Public Citizen Divisions Home
Promoting a sustainable energy future

JOIN US! |Take Action | Publications | About Energy Program | Contact Us
Search

For Keyword(s)
advanced search

Email Signup

Sign up for our free activist updates.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)


LNG Factsheets

- Campaign Contributions and Amount Spent Lobbying the Federal Government By Major Developers of Proposed LNG Projects

- Proposed and Recently Approved Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities (by location)

- Proposed and Recently Approved Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities (by company)

LNG is natural gas supercooled into a liquid form. This is done to more easily transport natural gas to the U.S. from destinations not linked by pipeline (for example, importing natural gas from Canada can be accomplished by sending natural gas through a pipeline; importing natural gas from Indonesia or Nigeria must be done by transporting LNG by tanker). LNG can pose significant security and environmental hazards.

In response to concerns of looming domestic natural gas shortages, disputes have arisen between states, community groups and the federal government over whether Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) represents a solution or a new problem for America's energy policy. In a distressing move on November 19, 2004, some in Congress sought to pre-empt this debate by sneaking controversial language into a conference report, without a vote, that may undermine the ability of states and local communities to have their voices adequately represented in this important debate.

In June the National Governor's Association wrote the U.S. Senate urging them to support the bi-partisan amendment to the energy bill protecting the ability of states to have adequate say over the siting and permitting of proposed LNG facilities.

The Senate ultimately rejected NGA's (and Public Citizen's) request.  On June 22, 2005 the US Senate voted 52 to 45 (3 not voting) rejecting an amendment to the energy bill that would have provided Governors the right to veto proposed LNG projects (a "nay" vote is the good vote).

Previously the House, voting 237 to 194, struck down an amendment to remove language which gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over LNG permitting and siting. So a "no" vote forbade states from having an adequate say over the siting and permitting of LNG facilities

Press Release: Groups Say LNG Facility Must Be Strongly Regulated

Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke report on security threats associated with LNG marine facilities

Republican Members of House Energy Committee Draft Energy Legislation Undermining State & Local Control Over LNG

Congress Sneaks in Language Undermining State and Local Control Over Hazardous, Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities

Action Alert! Stop Congress From Undermining Local Control Over LNG

Letter from Rhode Island Attorney General Lynch Responding to Proposed Language in Congressional Bill (H.R. 4818) Affecting LNG Facilities

California Public Utilities Commission February 2004 Protest to the LNG power grab by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Existing & Proposed North American LNG Terminals

U.S. Senate Testimony of Wenonah Hauter on Natural Gas and LNG Concerns

Appendix to Wenonah Hauter Testimony

Prior Attempt by Congress to Install Anti-Consumer LNG Provision into Energy Legislation

    » cmep | energy enviro nuclear | electricity | Oil and Gas | lng


Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click here.


Publications
Join | Contact PC | Contribute | Site Map | Careers/Internships| Privacy Statement