Senators Introduce Competing Proposals Relating to Natural Gas Exports

Mar 14, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

Senator Markey Proposes To Halt New Exports to Countries that do Not Have a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. for up to Two years – Or Longer

Senator Markey issued a press release indicating that he opposes efforts to expedite new natural gas exports.  Senator Markey believes that the U.S. should put diplomatic pressure on Russia, but not at the expense of America’s manufacturers and consumers.  Senator Markey is concerned that additional exports could result in spikes in natural gas prices which could cost American consumers and businesses $62 billion per year.

Senator Markey’s bill, S. 2088 , called the “American Natural Gas Security and Consumer Protection Act,” would amend the NGA to require that before any additional exports of gas may be authorized to countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the U.S., the Secretary of Energy must issue new regulations for determining whether an export of natural gas is in the public interest.  The bill would require the Secretary to issue final regulations within two years of enactment of the proposed legislation.

The new regulations would require the Secretary to make a determination as to whether each proposed export is in the public interest through:

  • Use of the latest available data on current and projected U.S. gas demand, production, and price;
  • Consideration of the effects of the proposed export on:  household and business energy expenditures; the U.S. economy, jobs, and manufacturing; the energy security of the U.S.; the conservation of domestic natural gas supplies to meet future energy needs of the U.S.; the potential for natural gas use in transportation, industrial, and electricity sectors of the U.S.; the ability of the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; the national security and foreign policy of the U.S.; domestic natural gas supply and availability; the balance of trade; other issues determined to be relevant; and
  • Consideration of a detailed statement, to be issued by the Secretary under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, of the environmental impact of the issuance of exportation orders, which must include an analysis of the impacts of gas production on the environment in communities where the gas to be exported is produced.

Impact of the Proposed Legislation

Neither bill would change the approval process for exports destined for countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas.  Such exports still would be deemed to be consistent with the public interest, and granted without modification or delay.  However, both bills would dramatically change the current method of evaluating exports to non-free trade countries.  Currently, the NGA requires approval of such proposed exports unless the Secretary finds the exportation is not in the national interest.  Under Senator Markey’s proposal, this presumption in favor of exports is would be removed.  Instead, the Secretary would have to make an affirmative finding that an export to a non-free trade country is in the national interest before the export application could be approved.  The new regulations would require the Secretary to undertake a detailed analysis of each export application, based on consideration of a number of economic, environmental, and national security factors.  At best, this would mean significant delays in obtaining future export authorizations to non-free trade nations.  Senator Begich’s proposal, on the other hand, would preserve the presumption in favor of exports, and it would expedite the approval process for some countries that do not have a free-trade agreement with the U.S.


1 Gas that is exported solely to meet a requirement imposed under certain legislation dealing with emergency situations would be exempted from the requirements of Senator Markey’s bill.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.