Public Citizen Testimony Against HB 3997 — Limiting Contested Case Hearing Procedures
Public Citizen Testimony Against HB 3997 -- Limiting Contested Case Hearing Procedures
To: Chairman Brooks Landgraf and the Members of the House Committee on Environmental Regulation
CC: Vice-Chair Claudia Ordaz, Rep. Rafael Anchía, Rep. Keith Bell, Rep. Ben Bumgarner, Rep. Penny Morales Shaw, Rep. Tom Oliverson, Rep. Ron Reynolds, Rep. Steve Toth
Via hand delivery and by email.
From: Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen, ashelley@citizen.org, 512-477-1155
Re: HB 3997, LNG exports – Public Citizen testimony in opposition
Dear Chairman Landgraf and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of 30,000 members and supporters in Texas, Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to testify against HB 3997, relating to permit application review and contested case procedures for environmental permits involving a project to construct or modify a liquefied natural gas export terminal; authorizing a fee.
LNG exports increase prices for consumers and undermine energy security.
It is apparent that increasing LNG exports in the United States is intended to benefit a small number of global fossil-fuel energy companies—not the consumer. A December 2024 study by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management found that increasing LNG exports would cost the U.S. residential consumer 3-4% on their gas bill by 2050.1
Although this might seem like a small amount, it is absurd that U.S. customers would pay more for methane gas while fossil fuel companies benefit from the United States’ status as the leading global exporter of LNG. Furthermore, other analysis have found a far greater impact from LNG exports. A Public Citizen analysis of data release in May 2023 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that domestic consumers will bap $14.3 billion more for methane gas in 2050. Our analysis found that the price of methane gas to consumers in Texas could increase by 42%:2
LNG exports also undermine domestic energy security. When Winter Storm Uri led to an energy emergency caused in part by failure of the methane gas supply, one of Governor Abbott’s first actions was to call for a pause on LNG exports.3
LNG exports are already rapidly increasing beyond what the planet can bear.
LNG export has increased exponentially in the last decade, from 500 million cubic feet per day in 2016 to 11.9 billion cubic feet per day (11.9 Bcf/d) in 2024.4
Three more facilities, Plaquemines LNG (Phases 1 and 2), Corpus Christi LNG Stage 3, and Golden Pass LNG, will begin exporting in 2025 and 2026, adding another 5.3-6.3 Bcf/d. This means that this market will already see 50% growth in the next two years.5
These increases are far more than our climate can bear. A recent analysis by Inside Climate News found that just the greenhouse gas emissions from the tankers carrying LNG from the United States—including both the fuel they burn and the methane they leak—more than cancel out all of the GHG reduction benefits of electric vehicles driven in the United States. This doesn’t even account for the massive global impact of burning all of that additional exported LNG.
Expedited permitting of LNG export facilities should not be a priority for the TCEQ.
The actual number of LNG export terminals in Texas is small.6
Active LNG export terminals:
- Corpus Christi LNG
- Freeport LNG.
Terminals under construction:
- Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III
- Golden Pass LNG
- Port Arthur LNG
- Rio Grande LNG
Terminals that have been approved:
- Rio Grande LNG Phase 2
- Freeport LNG Train 4
Freeport LNG, one of only two operational facilities in Texas, suffered a major explosion in June 2022 that caused it to close for six months.7 A federal pipeline safety report on the explosion blamed “inadequate operating and testing procedures, human error and fatigue[.]”8 We recommend the TCEQ focus on safety at existing facilities, not expedited permitting.
Limiting the contested case hearing process restricts the rights of Texans.
The Contested Case Hearing (CCH) is a procedural right of Texans who wish to challenge environmental permits. The State Office of Administrative Hearings hears a small number of CCH’s on environmental permits each year—perhaps two dozen.
The public’s rights in the CCH process have been steadily limited over time by the legislature. Strict time limits, procedural requirements, and evidentiary standards have limited the effectiveness of the process and the ability of members of the public to participate.
HB 3997 continues this trend. It introduces new deadlines to hasten the process. In our experience, it is during the CCH process that the public has the most leverage to negotiate with a permit applicant. CCH’s don’t result in facilities not being built—they result in stronger relationships between a facility owner and its neighbors. They also sometimes result in substantive improvements to operations or monitoring at a facility that provide public health benefits. Limiting the CCH process reduces the incentive for a permit applicant to negotiate with the public—they may choose instead to just wait out the process.
Requiring an affected person to state the exact reason why he or she is an affected person is also arbitrary and will limit the ability of the public to participate in the process. The standard for affected party status is a matter of law, regulation, and agency guidance. It is not intelligible by a member of the public without background in applicable law.
In our experience, members of the public who participate in the CCH process often don’t consult with an attorney until their request for affected party status has been granted. This means the burden of demonstrating affected party status falls on a person without legal expertise.
HB 3997 limits a judge determining party status to only consider the specific reasons a person states in their request for a CCH. Consider a request in which a person’s request includes a home address that clearly demonstrates they live close enough to a facility to be considered an affected party. Can the judge consider this fact if the person hasn’t specifically alleged that they live near the facility? We suggest clarifying that the judge can by inserting the following at the end of P.2, L. 14, “except that the party’s address may always be considered to determine distance from the proposed facility as a means of establishing affected party status.”
In conclusion, we ask you not to vote for HB 3997 because we don’t believe more LNG exports facilities are needed in Texas, we believe TCEQ should focus on the safety of existing facilities, and we don’t believe the public’s procedural rights should be further limited.