Natural Gas: Federal Approval Process for Liquefied Natural Gas Exports
Published: 2014-09-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Technological advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have resulted in a dramatic increase in the amount of natural gas that can be produced domestically. DOE is responsible for reviewing applications to export LNG—natural gas cooled to a liquid state for transport—and, under the Natural Gas Act, must approve an application unless it finds that approval is not consistent with the public interest. Since 2010, DOE has received 35 applications to export LNG that must address the public interest question. In addition, under NEPA, FERC is required to assess how LNG export facilities may affect the environment and is responsible for granting approval to build and operate export facilities. Since 2010, FERC has received 17 applications to construct export facilities.
GAO was asked to report on the federal process for reviewing applications to export LNG. This report describes (1) the status of applications to export LNG and DOE's process to review them and (2) the status of applications to build LNG export facilities and FERC's process to review them.
GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance; examined export approvals; visited LNG facilities; and interviewed federal and state agency officials and industry representatives, including LNG export permit applicants.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since 2010, of 35 applications it has received that require a public interest review, the Department of Energy (DOE) has approved 3 applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 6 applications are conditionally approved with final approval contingent on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) issuance of a satisfactory environmental review of the export facility. DOE considers a range of factors to determine whether each application is in the public interest. After the first application was conditionally approved in 2011, DOE commissioned a study to help it determine whether additional LNG exports were in the public interest. Since the 16-month study was published in December 2012, DOE issued 7 conditional approvals (one of which became final) and 1 other final approval (see fig. below). In August 2014, DOE suspended its practice of issuing conditional approvals; instead, DOE will review applications after FERC completes its environmental review.
DOE LNG Export Application Status
Since 2010, FERC has approved 3 LNG export facilities for construction and operation, including 2 facilities in 2014, and is reviewing 14 applications (see fig. below). FERC's review process is, among other things, designed to fulfill its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Before submitting an application to FERC, applicants must enter an initial stage called pre-filing to identify and resolve potential issues during the earliest stages of a project. Of the 14 applications, 5 are in the pre-filing stage at FERC and not shown in the figure below. FERC conducts an environmental and safety review with input from other federal, state and local agencies.
FERC LNG Export Facility Application Status

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Technological advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have  dramatically increased the amount of natural gas that can be extracted  domestically. This increase has helped reduce natural gas prices in the  United States, although prices remain significantly higher overseas. To  take advantage of overseas prices, energy companies have applied to the  federal government for permission to export natural gas. Natural gas, like  crude oil, requires federal approval before it can be exported. To  transport natural gas by ship, the natural gas is cooled to a liquid state  called liquefied natural gas (LNG). This cooling process requires  expensive processing and liquefaction facilities that do not currently exist  in the contiguous United States.
The Department of Energy (DOE) and Federal Energy Regulatory  Commission (FERC) are two federal agencies with primary responsibility  for approving LNG exports. Under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA), as  amended, DOE is responsible for reviewing LNG export applications and, for countries that do not have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the  United States, determining whether approval of such applications is  consistent with the public interest. In this report, we discuss non-FTA  applications that require a public interest review. FERC is responsible for  authorizing the construction and operation of facilities located onshore or  within state waters that liquefy natural gas and load the LNG onto ships  for export. FERC conducts an environmental review of the facility to help  with this decision. Until May 2014, DOE granted approvals—known as  conditional approvals—on the condition that FERC completed a  satisfactory environmental review of the associated export facility. DOE  granted final approvals only after it had the opportunity to consider and  adopt the FERC-led review. In May 2014, DOE proposed suspending its  practice of issuing conditional approvals and instead proposed reviewing  applications only after FERC has completed the environmental review,  and DOE has sufficient information to determine the public interest of an  application. In August 2014, DOE finalized this proposal after a public  comment and review period. Since 2010, DOE has received 35  applications to export LNG that require a public interest review, and  FERC has received 17 applications to construct LNG export facilities.
You asked us to report on DOE’s and FERC’s processes for reviewing  applications for LNG exports and export facilities, respectively. This report  describes (1) DOE’s process for reviewing applications to export LNG and  the status of those applications and (2) FERC’s process for reviewing  applications to build LNG export facilities and the status of those  applications.
To describe the process and status of application reviews at DOE and  FERC, we reviewed DOE and FERC approval documents and spoke with  agency officials. To describe DOE’s process for reviewing applications to  export LNG, we examined relevant federal laws, regulations, and policy  documents. We reviewed DOE approvals to export LNG, including one  final and seven conditional approvals. We also interviewed DOE officials  responsible for reviewing applications to export LNG to discuss the review  process and how they determine whether an application is in the public  interest. To describe FERC’s process for reviewing applications to build  LNG export facilities, we examined relevant federal laws, regulations and  FERC guidance. We also interviewed FERC officials to discuss the export  facility review process. We reviewed FERC environmental documents  relating to LNG export facilities. We also interviewed other federal and  state agencies involved in the review process—including the U.S. Coast  Guard (Coast Guard), the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety  Administration (PHMSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT),  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Maryland Public Service  Commission, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, and the  Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—to describe their roles in  FERC’s review process. To describe the applicants’ experience, we  interviewed a nonprobability sample of applicants from the Sabine Pass,  Freeport, Lake Charles, Cove Point, and Jordan Cove facilities. We also  visited a nonprobability sample of LNG facilities at Lusby, Maryland;  Brazoria County, Texas; and Cameron Parish, Louisiana. We selected  these facilities because they applied to FERC and were approved or  conditionally approved for export by DOE. To describe how the public is  involved in the review process, we interviewed representatives of  organizations that have commented on applications, such as America’s  Energy Advantage, the Sierra Club, the American Public Gas Association,  and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to  September 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: This section describes the factors affecting recent LNG activities in the  United States, the liquefaction process, DOE’s responsibilities for  authorizing export applications, FERC’s responsibilities for authorizing  export facilities, and positions of those supporting or opposing the export  of LNG.
subsections: section_title: Factors Affecting Recent LNG Activities in the United States
paragraphs: According to the Congressional Research Service, in the early 2000s,  natural gas production in the United States was declining as energy  demand was increasing and, as recently as the mid-to-late 2000s the  United States was projected to be a growing natural gas importer. In  addition to four onshore import terminals that were already operational,  natural gas companies built five LNG onshore import facilities in the latter  half of the 2000s to meet the expected need for natural gas imports.  However, technology enhancements improved the extraction of natural  gas from shale formations and resulted in a dramatic increase in domestic  natural gas production. These technology enhancements allow  companies to extract natural gas from shale formations that were  previously considered to be inaccessible because traditional techniques  did not yield sufficient amounts for economically viable production.  According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, between  2007 and 2013, domestic natural gas withdrawals increased by 22  percent, driven primarily by increased withdrawals from shale  formations. According to EIA, increases in natural gas supplies  generally cause prices to drop. Specifically, between 2007 and 2013, the  price of natural gas in the United States decreased by nearly 50  percent. As the price of natural gas in the United States declined, prices  in Europe and Asia remained considerably higher. In July 2014, FERC  estimated that prices of LNG imported to Europe and Asia during August  of 2014 would be about 100 and 250 percent higher than prices in the  United States, respectively. These price differences have motivated U.S  companies to apply to export natural gas.
section_title: The Liquefaction Process
paragraphs: The majority of U.S. trade in natural gas is by pipeline with Canada and  Mexico; however, over long distances separated by water, natural gas is  generally converted to LNG and transported by specialized tanker ship.   To convert natural gas to LNG, companies pretreat the natural gas to  remove components that would freeze during the liquefaction process  and contaminate the LNG.through a complex system called a liquefaction train that cools the natural  gas to -260 degrees Fahrenheit, converting it to a liquid state. This  process reduces the volume of the gas by 600 times. Once liquefied, the   After the gas is pretreated, it is processed  natural gas is stored in large tanks until it is offloaded to a ship for  transport. Once the ship reaches its destination, it is offloaded to tanks for  storage or converted to natural gas for distribution by pipeline.illustrates some of the common components of an LNG export facility.
section_title: DOE’s Responsibilities
paragraphs: Under Section 3 of the NGA, the import or export of LNG and the  construction or expansion of LNG facilities requires authorization from  DOE. In 1984, DOE delegated the responsibility to approve or deny  applications for LNG facilities to FERC. Under Section 3, an  authorization is to be granted unless DOE finds that approving the export  or import is inconsistent with the public interest. According to DOE,  Section 3(a) of the NGA creates a rebuttable presumption that a  proposed export of natural gas is in the public interest—that is, it places  the burden on those opposing an application to demonstrate that an  export is inconsistent with the public interest. The NGA also authorizes  DOE to attach terms and conditions necessary to protect the public  interest. DOE evaluates public interest under Section 3, and can conduct  studies or other reviews to support its public interest determination.
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress amended the NGA to require  DOE to use a different standard for the review of applications for export to  countries with FTAs with the United States (FTA countries). Specifically,  under Section 3(c) of the NGA, DOE must treat applications to export  LNG to FTA countries as consistent with the public interest, and DOE is  to approve these applications without modification or delay. These FTA  applications therefore do not require the same public interest review as  non-FTA applications. DOE started to receive applications to export LNG  in 2010 and, since then, it has approved 37 of 42 applications to export  LNG to FTA countries. During this same period, DOE approved 9 (3 final  and 6 conditional) of 35 applications to export LNG to non-FTA  countries. Most major importers of LNG are non-FTA countries such as  Japan and India, among others. As previously mentioned, this report  discusses DOE’s process to review applications to export to non-FTA  countries.
section_title: FERC’s Responsibilities
paragraphs: In keeping with its obligation to authorize LNG facility siting and  construction under the NGA, FERC reviews applications to construct and  operate LNG export facilities. FERC’s review is considered a federal  action and subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the projected effects of major  federal actions that significantly affect the environment. Prior to the NEPA  review, the law requires applicants to communicate with FERC for a  minimum of 6 months—known as pre-filing—before submitting an  application. FERC acts as the lead agency for the environmental review  required by NEPA, prepares the NEPA environmental documentation,  and coordinates and sets the schedule for all federal authorizations. The  outcome of this review is an environmental document, also called the  NEPA document, which provides the commissioners with staff’s  assessment of the environmental impacts from facility construction and  operation.
section_title: Positions Surrounding the Export of Natural Gas
paragraphs: DOE and FERC consider comments from the public during the application  review process, and these comments reflect a range of perspectives on  the potential benefits or harm from exports. Proponents maintain that  LNG exports are consistent with U.S. free trade policies and will provide  an economic boon for the United States, resulting in increased  employment and an improved trade balance among other things.  They  assert that the increased availability of natural gas resources will prevent  a significant increase in natural gas prices. Opponents have expressed  numerous environmental and economic concerns about LNG exports. For  example, opponents have expressed concern that exports will increase  hydraulic fracturing and its associated environmental effects, as well as  increase greenhouse gas emissions from the production and  consumption of natural gas.that exports will increase domestic natural gas prices, hurting the public  and the growing industrial and manufacturing sectors that are sensitive to  natural gas prices. Opponents have also stated that the primary  beneficiaries of LNG exports will be a small segment of society involved  in natural gas development and trade, and that most segments of society   Other opponents have expressed concern  will lose economically. Evaluating whether exports of LNG to non-FTA  countries are consistent with the public interest is beyond the scope of  this report.
section_title: DOE Has Approved 9 Applications to Export LNG through a Review Process That Considers a Range of Factors to Determine Whether Approval Is in the Public Interest
paragraphs: Since 2010, DOE has granted final approval to 3 applications and  conditional approval to 6 others. DOE considers a range of factors to  determine whether approving an export application is in the public  interest.
subsections: section_title: DOE Has Approved 3 Applications and Conditionally Approved 6 Others
paragraphs: As of mid-September 2014, DOE has granted 3 final approvals for  applications to export LNG, including the Sabine Pass application in 2012  and the Cameron LNG and Carib Energy applications in September 2014.  Sabine Pass is the only LNG export facility currently under construction in  the United States and is expected to begin operations in late 2015. In  August 2011, after DOE conditionally approved exports from Sabine  Pass, DOE commissioned a study of the cumulative effects of additional  LNG exports on the economy and the public interest.approve any conditional applications during the 16-month period of the   DOE did not  study. The study was completed in December 2012. Since then, DOE  has conditionally approved 7 applications, including the Cameron LNG  application that it granted final approval in September 2014 (See fig. 2).  DOE also approved the Carib Energy application in September 2014.  DOE’s export approvals, as of late August 2014, amount to 10.56 billion  cubic feet of natural gas per day in the form of LNG; for comparison,  Qatar, the world’s largest exporter of LNG, exported about 10 billion cubic  feet per day in 2012.
section_title: DOE Reviews Each Application Separately and Considers a Range of Factors to Determine if Approval Is in the Public Interest
paragraphs: According to DOE, when determining whether approval of an application  is in the public interest, DOE focuses on (1) the domestic need for natural  gas, (2) whether the proposed export threatens the security of domestic  natural gas supplies, and (3) whether the arrangement is consistent with  DOE’s policy of promoting market competition along with other factors  bearing on the public interest, such as environmental concerns. In  passing the NGA, Congress did not define “public interest;” however, in  1984, DOE developed policy guidelines establishing criteria that the  agency uses to evaluate applications for natural gas imports. The  guidelines stipulate that, among other things, the market—not the  government—should determine the price and other contract terms of  imported natural gas. In 1999, DOE began applying these guidelines to  natural gas exports.
DOE’s review of export applications is not a standardized process,  according to agency officials; rather, it is a case-by-case deliberation,  where each application is considered separately from others.  DOE’s  review process begins when an applicant submits documentation to DOE  requesting permission to export LNG. DOE examines applications one at  a time, and it issues a notice of application in the Federal Register to  invite persons interested in the application to comment, protest, or   Applicants are then given an opportunity to respond to  intervene.comments. DOE’s internal review includes an examination of the  application and analysis of public interest using public comments and  applicant responses, the criteria outlined in its policy guidelines, the NGA,  DOE’s study of the effects of additional LNG exports, and past DOE  authorizations. As discussed above, the NGA authorizes DOE to attach  terms and conditions necessary to protect the public interest. To further  inform its public interest review, DOE commissioned the study of the  potential effects of additional exports on the economy. Since the study  was released in December 2012, DOE has used it to support its public  interest review for each of its application approval documents, including  referencing the study’s conclusion that LNG exports would have a net  positive effect on the economy.
After considering the evidence, DOE issues an order denying the  application or granting the application on condition of a satisfactory  completion of the NEPA review by FERC. DOE includes the reasoning  behind its decision in each order. DOE may also modify the request in an  order, such as by limiting the approved export amount or duration. Once  DOE conditionally approves an application, it does not grant a final  approval until it has reviewed FERC’s NEPA document and reconsidered  its public interest determination in light of relevant environmental  information. Under NEPA, DOE must give appropriate consideration to  the environmental effects of its decisions; FERC’s NEPA document  provides the basis for this consideration.
79 Fed. Reg. 32261 (June 4, 2014). The change would also supersede the precedence  order. According to the DOE notice, DOE could still choose to implement the policy of  issuing conditional orders at a later date. According to DOE officials, this change would  allow them to use agency resources more efficiently because they would conduct a single  review of each application instead of separate reviews for conditional and final approvals.  In addition, the proposal would allow projects that are more commercially advanced to be  reviewed by DOE once FERC has issued a NEPA document.
section_title: FERC Has Approved 3 Facility Applications and Is Reviewing 14 Others Using a Technically Complex Process That Involves Other Agencies
paragraphs: Since 2010, FERC approved 3 facility applications, including 2 in 2014,  and is currently reviewing 14 applications. FERC’s reviews of LNG export  facility applications are a multiyear analysis of the potential environmental  and safety effects of the facility that involves other federal, state, and local  agencies.
subsections: section_title: FERC Approved 3 Facility Applications and Is Reviewing 14 Applications
paragraphs: FERC approved applications to construct and operate the Sabine Pass  LNG export facility in April 2012, the Cameron facility in June 2014, and  the Freeport facility in July 2014. As of late August 2014, FERC was  reviewing 14 applications (See fig. 3). FERC has issued three final NEPA  documents in 2014, including for the Cameron and Freeport facilities, and  expects to complete one more by the end of 2014. FERC officials said  that they could not discuss when the Commission would act on these  facility applications.
As shown above, FERC’s review of applications to construct LNG export  facilities can take 2 to 3 years or more.reviews are lengthy because of the complexity of the facilities and number  of permits and reviews required by federal and state law. For example,  applicants must model the effects of LNG spills from pipes and storage  tanks on areas around the facility under a variety of scenarios. One of the  applicants we spoke with said that the number of variables involved in  modeling a single scenario could require up to a week of computer  processing.
section_title: FERC’s Reviews of Applications to Construct LNG Export Facilities Are Technically Complex
paragraphs: FERC’s review process is technically complex and includes the following  three phases.
Pre-filing. According to FERC officials, the pre-filing phase is intended to  allow applicants to communicate freely with FERC staff and stakeholders  to identify and resolve issues before the applicant formally files an  application with FERC. Under Commission regulations issued pursuant  to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, applicants are required to pre-file with  FERC a minimum of 6 months before formally filing. The pre-filing phase  can vary significantly depending on project specifics; the Freeport and  Lake Charles applications were in the pre-filing phase for over 19 months,  while the Cameron application was in the pre-filing phase for about 7  months. FERC officials said that the duration of each phase can vary  depending on the site specific characteristics of the proposed facility and  responsiveness of the applicant to requests for information from FERC.  The pre-filing period also involves public outreach by the applicant and  FERC, and FERC allows public comments during this period. An  applicant completes the pre-filing period when it has submitted the  required documentation to FERC and formally filed. This documentation  includes a series of 13 resource reports that consist of, among other  things, detailed information on project engineering and design, air and  water quality, and fish and wildlife, as well as a description of the  anticipated environmental effects of the project and proposed mitigation  measures. One applicant told us that the resource reports it submitted to  FERC consisted of over 12,000 pages.
Application review. The application review phase includes FERC’s  review of the application and development of the environmental document  required by NEPA. FERC officials told us that they start the review phase  after an applicant has successfully completed the pre-filing process and  submits an application. FERC reviews, among other things, facility  engineering plans and safety systems identified by the applicant;  environmental effects from the construction and operation of the facility;  and, potential alternatives to the proposed project. FERC develops a  NEPA document with input from relevant agencies that elect to  participate, called cooperating agencies, as well as other stakeholders.  FERC officials told us that, depending on the location of the proposed  facility and amount of construction, FERC prepares either an  environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA).  FERC will prepare an EA if it believes the review will find no significant  impact on the environment from the project. For example, FERC prepared  an EA for the Sabine Pass facility because the proposed facility was  within the footprint of an existing LNG import facility and previously the  subject of an EIS. FERC officials told us that the agency generally  prepares an EIS for proposed facilities that would extend beyond the  footprint of an existing import facility. After an EIS or EA is drafted, FERC  solicits comments from federal agencies and the public on the  document.those into a final EIS or EA, as necessary. The final EIS or EA will  recommend any environmental and safety mitigation measures to be   FERC reviews agency and public comments and integrates  completed during various stages of the project. FERC staff submits the  final NEPA document and other staff analyses to FERC commissioners  for consideration. FERC commissioners consider the entire record of  the proceeding, including the NEPA document, to determine whether to  approve a project.
Post-authorization. The post-authorization phase includes FERC  oversight of plant construction and operations. After FERC approves a  project but before an applicant can start construction, the applicant must  develop a plan describing how it will meet any conditions and mitigation  measures identified in FERC’s approval. FERC oversees construction  and ensures that these conditions are met. The Coast Guard and DOT  also oversee construction to ensure compliance with their respective  regulations. FERC conducts compliance and site inspections during  construction at least every 8 weeks. Following construction, the applicant  must receive written authorizations from the Commission to begin  operations at the facility. Once the facility is operational, FERC conducts  annual inspections and requires semiannual status reports from the  facility operator.
section_title: FERC’s Review Process Involves Other Federal, State, and Local Agencies
paragraphs: As the lead agency responsible for the environmental and safety review  of LNG export facilities under NEPA, FERC works with federal, state, and  local agencies to develop the NEPA document. In some cases, such as  with the Corps and DOE, agencies will adopt and use the NEPA  document in issuing their respective permits related to the export facility.  In addition, FERC regulations require applicants to consult with the  appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to ensure that all  environmental effects are identified.obtains the appropriate federal permits or consultations with these  agencies. Major federal participants in FERC’s LNG facility review include  the following:   FERC ensures that the applicant
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard requires applicants to assess the  effects of a new facility on a bordering waterway. The applicant  provides the assessment to the Coast Guard for validation and review  before filing its FERC application, and the Coast Guard advises FERC  on the suitability of the waterway for the LNG marine traffic associated  with the facility. The Coast Guard and DOT also assist FERC’s review  of safety and security of the facility.
PHMSA. PHMSA is an agency within DOT responsible for  establishing national policy relating to pipeline safety and hazardous  material transportation, including the authority to establish and  enforce safety standards for onshore LNG facilities. To assist FERC’s  assessment of whether a facility would affect public safety, FERC  regulations require applicants to show that their facility design would  comply with PHMSA regulations for hazardous liquids vapor  dispersion and fires. Applicants submit models of vapor dispersion  to FERC, and FERC consults with PHMSA to ensure that the models  comply with PHMSA regulations.
The Corps. Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, operations  that discharge dredged or fill material into U.S. waters are required to  obtain a permit from the Corps. Discharges under this permit must  have a state certification to ensure the discharge meets water quality  standards. In addition, under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors  Act of 1899, the Corps has regulatory authority to oversee  construction activities within the navigable waters of the United  States, and applicants may be required to obtain a permit from the  Corps.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Applicants may be  required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to receive air permits for the  construction and operation of LNG facilities. State environmental  agencies generally issue these permits, but EPA can issue the  permits if a state is not authorized to issue permits, or under other  limited circumstances. EPA also comments on the FERC draft and  final EIS, as required by the CAA.
Applicants may also be required by law to consult with these and other  federal agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to ensure their  applications comply with federal laws such as the Endangered Species  Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery  Conservation and Management Act, and the Fish and Wildlife  Coordination Act.
In addition to federal permits and consultations, applicants may also be  required to obtain other permits under state and local law. Because of the  wide variety of projects, locations, and state and local laws, permitting  requirements vary by project. The applicant is responsible for identifying  the necessary permits and consultations and reporting these to FERC as  part of the pre-filing process. In addition to issuing most air permits and  water quality certifications, states and local agencies have other  permitting and consultation responsibilities, such as to consult with  applicants to ensure compliance with the Coastal Zone Management  Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this product to FERC and the DOE for their review  and comment. DOE and FERC provided technical comments, which we  incorporated throughout the report as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 5 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Chairman of FERC, the Secretary of  Energy, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Application Names Used by the GAO
paragraphs: For the purposes of this report, GAO developed table 1 below to allow us  to use a single name to refer to related applications to the Federal Energy  Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE).  Table 1 lists (1) the names of applicants that submitted requests to FERC  to construct liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, (2) the names of  applicants that submitted requests to DOE to export LNG from those  facilities, and (3) the name GAO used to refer to these applications. In  some cases, multiple companies filed jointly for one application.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Christine Kehr (Assistant  Director), Cheryl Harris, and David Messman made key contributions to  this report. Important contributions were also made by Mark Braza,  Michael Kendix, Alison O’Neill, Dan Royer, and Barbara Timmerman.