Table of Contents
US Senate vote was anticipated on a bill aimed at halting approval
In a dramatic turn of events in the US Senate on Thursday, a vote was anticipated on a bill aimed at halting approval for liquefied natural gas exports, an endeavor perceived as a bid to undermine the authority of President Joe Biden’s administration.
Should this bill pass through the Republican-controlled House, it could face contention in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Sponsored by Texas gas producer Representative August Pfluger, the bill would leave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the sole authority to approve LNG projects.
Clearview Energy Partners, a non-partisan energy policy research group, stated in a note to clients, “We believe this could be a signal of an end to the stalemate and the beginning of an effort and debate, as the bill is unlikely to receive Senate approval.”
President Biden halted approvals for exports at the end of last month to scrutinize the environmental and economic impacts of rapidly growing trade. By the end of the decade, LNG exports from the United States are predicted to treble, making it the world’s top exporter last year.
This halt has faced backlash from Republicans, who argue it will impact jobs and undermine energy security for allies, particularly in Europe, where nations are attempting to reduce dependence on Russian pipeline gas after a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Some progressive Democrats also have reservations about this halt, stating they would push back if it adversely affects jobs.
Maros Sefcovic, the Vice President of the European Commission, remarked after meeting with Biden officials this week that the halt would have no immediate impact on American supplies to Europe over the next two or three years. Sefcovic added that the responsibility for energy security lies with the United States beyond Europe’s borders.
Meanwhile, allegations have resurfaced regarding payments made to individuals associated with former President Trump’s administration. Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, paid 0,000 to Daniels and arranged a 0,000 payment to McDougal, the publisher of the National Enquirer supermarket tabloid, in a practice known as “catch-and-kill.”
Prosecutors have alleged that Trump’s company paid Cohen 0,000 and recorded the payment as legal expenses rather than reimbursement. Last year, the Manhattan District Attorney accused Trump’s organization of manipulating internal records to conceal the true nature of payments.