WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the removal of additional regulatory barriers standing in the way of unleashing U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. DOE has rescinded a Biden-era policy statement that required authorized LNG exporters to meet stringent criteria before the agency would consider a request to extend a commencement date for an approved project. This policy statement added unnecessary red tape to the extensive LNG export permitting process and made it more difficult for operators of approved projects to obtain necessary extensions.  “I am glad to sign this action to return to common-sense policy on reviewing commencement date extension requests. Throughout the past few years, many factors, including the actions of the prior administration, have made it unnecessarily rigid to obtain and maintain an authorization to export U.S. LNG to non-free trade agreement countries,” said Tala Goudarzi, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. In rescinding this policy statement, issued in April 2023, DOE is removing a regulatory barrier for LNG exporters. As was its prior practice, DOE will again review requests to extend the commencement date of non-free trade agreement export authorizations on a case-by-case basis instead of requiring authorized exporters to meet stringent criteria before DOE would consider approving the request, including that the associated export project be under construction, and the authorization holder needed to demonstrate that extenuating circumstances outside its control prevented the commencement of exports within 7 years. Background: DOE’s authorizations for natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries usually require exporters to commence exports within seven years of authorization to allow time for the financing and construction of the associated export facility. While many projects are able to commence exports within 7 years of obtaining their DOE authorization, authorization holders

Dive Brief: A third-party review of large-scale battery energy storage system fires in the United States since 2012 found that none resulted in contaminant concentrations that would prompt a public health concern or require further remediation, the American Clean Power Association said Friday. ACP also on Friday released a safety blueprint for battery energy storage systems. The blueprint recommends that operators adopt the latest national fire safety standards, inspect systems deployed prior to those standards’ adoption, and conduct hazard mitigation and emergency response planning in partnership with state and local authorities. “Every community across the country should have confidence that the battery storage facilities keeping their lights on and utility bills affordable adhere to the most rigorous safety requirements,” ACP Vice President of Energy Storage Noah Roberts said in a statement. Dive Insight: Conducted by the Fire & Risk Alliance for ACP, the fire safety review examined 35 documented BESS fires, including high-profile 2023 incidents in New York and Idaho that the review says consumed substantial portions of the battery arrays involved. The FRA review cited environmental “studies [that found airborne] emissions are largely confined to the immediate vicinity of the fire, with rapid dissipation and concentration reduction in open-air scenarios.” Post-incident monitoring at battery fires in California and New York that showed “no detectable hazardous concentrations” of toxic chemicals like hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen cyanide led local authorities to lift shelter-in-place orders, FRA said. Firefighting efforts that consume large amounts of water raise concerns about local soil and water contamination, but post-incident data “does not support the notion of widespread contamination risks,” FRA said. Allowing batteries to consume themselves and applying cooling water only as needed is a best practice for fighting lithium-ion fires. That practice, in conjunction with standard stormwater management practices, can reduce contaminant runoff, FRA said.

President Donald Trump said he was “very angry” at Vladimir Putin and threatened “secondary tariffs” on buyers of his country’s oil if the Russian leader refuses a ceasefire with Ukraine. In comments reported by NBC News, Trump said he was “pissed off” at Putin for casting doubt on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s legitimacy as a negotiating partner, and threatened curbs on “all oil coming out of Russia.” He later added that he didn’t think the Russian president would “go back on his word.”  While the US president appeared to temper his remarks, the threats mark a significant change of tone for Washington and suggest a possible souring in relations with his Russian counterpart over the pace of ceasefire talks. Before taking office, Trump said he could resolve the war quickly, but the conflict rages on more than two months later.  “I certainly wouldn’t want to put secondary tariffs on Russia,” Trump later clarified in comments to reporters on Air Force One, adding he was “disappointed” with some of Putin’s recent comments on Zelenskiy. “He’s supposed to be making a deal with him, whether you like him or don’t like him. So I wasn’t happy with that. But I think he’s going to be good.” Trump’s frustration was sparked by comments Putin made on Friday that implicitly challenged Zelenskiy’s legitimacy by proposing the United Nations should take over Ukraine with a temporary government overseen by the US and possibly even some European countries.  The Kremlin on Monday said that Putin remained open to contacts with Trump.  “If necessary, their conversation will be organized very quickly,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, according to the state-run Tass news agency, though he said no call had been scheduled yet. Peskov also said that Russia was continuing to work with the US to build bilateral

The PJM Interconnection’s response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s investigation into the grid operator’s rules for colocated loads indicates FERC may not approve new regulations by mid-year, as some people initially thought, according to utility-sector analysts. FERC on Feb. 20 launched a review of issues related to colocating large loads, such as data centers, at power plants in PJM’s footprint. The outcome of the review could set a precedent for colocated load in the power markets FERC oversees. Talen Energy, Constellation Energy and PSEG Power, a Public Service Enterprise Group subsidiary, are among the companies that are considering hosting data centers at their nuclear power plants in PJM. In its “show cause” order, FERC asked PJM and stakeholders to explain why the grid operator’s colocation rules are just and reasonable or to offer rules that would pass agency muster. FERC established a comment schedule that enables the agency to issue a response by June 20. The agency said it could make a decision on a PJM proposal within three months. However, instead of proposing new colocation rules, PJM on March 24 said its existing rules are just and reasonable. The grid operator also offered five conceptual colocation options that have been proposed by stakeholders or developed by PJM. PJM urged FERC to issue “detailed guiding principles” that the grid operator could use to craft colocation rules for the agency’s approval. The lack of a proposal from PJM likely extends FERC’s review process, according to analysts. “FERC may still act on the show cause order in June, but we don’t rule out a new iteration of process instead of a clear policy decision,” ClearView Energy Partners analysts said in a client note on Friday. It will likely take FERC until late this year to approve changes to PJM’s colocation rules,

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion Wednesday opposing motions for injunctive relief filed by three nonprofits that have had their access to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant money frozen, arguing that their monetary harm does not warrant an injunction and is not irreparable.  The nonprofit Climate Fund United, which received a $6.97 billion National Clean Investment Fund grant, was the first to sue over the frozen funds last month, targeting EPA and fund holder Citibank. The Coalition for Green Capital, which received $5 billion from the NCFI, and Power Forward Communities, which received $2 billion from it, have each filed lawsuits against Citibank.  EPA argued for the injunction requests filed by each to be denied, as “an injunction should be denied when Plaintiffs’ alleged harms are monetary and may be remedied by damages” and “in terminating Plaintiffs’ grants, EPA has not prohibited or made it unlawful for Plaintiffs (or their subgrantees) to carry out their work.” “Nor has any other government action,” EPA said. “The government is not preventing Plaintiffs from providing services; EPA has just terminated the contracts under which the government would provide reimbursement for those services.” In a joint response filed Friday, the three plaintiffs argued that they have already “demonstrated several forms of irreparable harm, including potentially fatal disruption to Plaintiffs’ operations; irreplaceable loss of clients, partnerships, and opportunities; devastating reputational injury; interference with Plaintiffs’ missions; and an immediate risk of insolvency for some of the Plaintiffs and their subgrantees.” “Many of these injuries have already materialized and will worsen if Plaintiffs continue to be deprived of access to their funds,” they said. The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the case is being heard, has previously held that financial harm can constitute irreparable harm when the existence

As U.S. transit agencies increasingly order buses powered by batteries or hydrogen fuel cells, some of these same agencies are beginning to look at trains that use similar technologies. Stadler, an international train manufacturer, already has trains in testing and on order in two states, while other manufacturers of such trains operating in Canada and Europe are eyeing U.S. opportunities, too. California puts Stadler hydrogen trains to the test California announced a $310 billion plan in January to develop a zero-emission passenger rail network across much of the state by 2050. A hydrogen-powered passenger train built by Stadler, a Swiss company, began testing on San Bernardino County’s Metrolink commuter line between San Bernardino and Redlands, California, in November. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority expects the train to go into regular service this year. “We’re confident that once that train goes into revenue service soon, that we’ll see a lot of positive feedback,” said Stadler’s Martin Ritter, executive vice president for North America. Ritter said California signed a contract with Stadler to provide up to 29 hydrogen fuel cell trains; it had ordered 10 as of a year ago. The state is bundling the procurement contract and will assign trains to different transit agencies, he said. Prior to its arrival in California, the SBCTA hydrogen train underwent testing at the Ensco Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. During that process, the train set a Guinness World Record for traveling 1,741.7 miles around a test loop without refueling or recharging.  Ritter said zero-emission trains are quieter and produce fewer vibrations than conventional fuel trains as they speed through communities along the line. He noted that the only byproduct of a fuel cell train is water vapor. Electric trains and streetcars have existed for more than a century. Passenger railroads like the