Louisiana delegation urge swift consideration of Cameron LNG project
Commonwealth LNG is a LNG liquefaction and export facility located on the west bank of the Calcasieu Ship Channel at the mouth of the Gulf of Mexico near Cameron. The facility will have six 50,000 M3 modular storage tanks and will be able to accommodate vessels up to 216,000 M3. (Special to the American Press)
Special to the American Press
U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today joined Speaker Mike Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy and Reps. Clay Higgins and Julia Letlow — all Louisiana Republicans — in sending a letter to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman Mark Christie in support of the Commonwealth liquefied natural gas project in Cameron Parish.
The lawmakers urged FERC to quickly consider the project at the commission's June 2025 meeting.
'We write in support of the Commonwealth LNG project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and urge swift consideration of Commonwealth's application before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Specifically, we ask you to add this matter to the June 2025 docket so that this project can move forward as soon as possible,' the Louisiana delegation began.
'Commonwealth LNG's terminal is an important project that will contribute to American energy dominance due to its capacity to process up to 9.5 million tonnes per year of LNG upon project completion. Furthermore, the Commonwealth project represents a direct investment of $4.5 billion in Louisiana, and construction of the terminal will generate 2,000 jobs during peak construction and maintain 200 jobs during regular operations,' they continued.
'Current predictions estimate global LNG demand to increase 60% by 2040, and Commonwealth LNG will support global energy security by supplying American-produced LNG to meet that increasing demand. Meeting global energy demands will reduce global reliance on LNG produced by our adversaries. Upholding Commonwealth LNG's authorization for the Cameron Parish project is crucial to broaden American presence in the global LNG market and ensure national security,'the lawmakers added.
'For these reasons, we urge you to move forward as quickly as possible to uphold the project's authorization during FERC's June 2025 Commission Meeting,' they concluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Melts Down as Musk Exits With His Wife and an Attack on Trump
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller spammed social media Tuesday night in a raging display of his unwavering support for President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as it faced increasing backlash from MAGA figures, including Elon Musk. The Trump loyalist went in hard to sell the 1,038-page document that passed the House by a single vote on May 22. Miller's comments came hours after former DOGE chief Musk attacked the mega-spending bill as the legislation moves to the Senate, labeling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The world's richest man also threatened to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' at next year's midterm elections. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X. Miller responded by calling Trump's bill 'the most essential piece of legislation... in generations' and 'the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House.' Miller pointedly described those on Trump's side of the argument as the president's 'closest allies.' It is unclear how much personal animus there is between Miller and Musk after the tech billionaire walked out on the administration, taking Miller's wife Katie with him. Katie Miller was hired by DOGE under the same 'special government employee' status as Musk, meaning that she was also time-limited to 130 days in office, but that has done little to quell unsubstantiated internet speculation about Musk and the Millers. She will now reportedly work for Musk full-time. Miller began his own barrage of posts on X, first by claiming Trump's bill would fund increased deportation. '[The bill] will increase by orders of magnitude the scope, scale, and speed of removing illegal and criminal aliens from the United States,' Miller wrote. 'For that reason alone, it's the most essential piece of legislation currently under consideration in the entire Western World, in generations.' 'Now or never,' the 39-year-old wrote in another post. Trump's bill is estimated to increase the budget deficit by approximately $600 billion in the next fiscal year. Miller tried to explain his take on the bill by breaking it down into three sections: 'The most significant border security and deportation effort' in history, a full 'extension and expansion' of Trump's tax cuts and finally cutting almost $2 trillion through 'the largest welcome reform in history.' 'Item 1 alone (border security + deportation),' Miller wrote, 'makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' Critics of Trump's bill fear it would lead to millions of Americans losing health coverage by slashing Medicaid and introducing budget cuts to food assistance programs, with spending on border security and military programs increased. Some Republicans have also expressed fears about the rising cost of the bill, despite a deadline of July 4 to get the measure passed and signed into law. Miller's flurry of posts included him bragging that the bill 'was designed by President Trump and his allies in Congress to deliver on his core campaign pledges to voters and that is exactly what it does. This is the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House, and it's not even close.' 'The bill was designed by President Trump, his loyal aides, and his closest allies in Congress to deliver fully and enthusiastically on the explicit promises he made the American People,' he wrote in another post. Miller also called out GOP Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who told Fox Business his biggest objection to Trump's bill was the addition of '$5 trillion to the debt ceiling' over the next decade. 'Why doesn't Rand ever fight this hard to deport illegals?' Miller asked in a post. Miller clarified Trump's bill would not fund the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the Environmental Protection Agency. Experts have, however, warned the bill could ruin student loan borrowers and universities and will have an environmental impact through increased mining and logging of public lands to raise revenue. 'We could have never dreamed of a bill like this in 2017,' Miller posted on X. Miller's loyalty comes as other Republican senators have joined Musk in questioning the contents of Trump's bill. At least four are demanding changes, according to Reuters. They include Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Ron Johnson. While Republicans have a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate, they cannot afford to lose support. Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed she had not read a part of the bulky bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of (the bill) that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene posted on X. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' California Republican Jack Kimble was also critical of the bill on Tuesday. He posted on X: 'Full transparency, I did not know that the big beautiful bill was a real budget and would be used to determine spending levels. It seems to me that this is something that should have been made known to those in the House of Representative[s].' When a follower told him 'you're supposed to read the bills before you vote on them' Kimble replied 'Yeah, my bad.' Ron Johnson also agreed with Musk's 'disgusting abomination' comments on the bill. Speaking to NewsNation's The Hill on Tuesday, Johnson said, 'He's telling the truth... that's all I'm doing, too.' 'The trajectory of deficits is up, and no matter what the 'big, beautiful bill' does, it does not address that long-term prospect, it does not bend the deficit curve down. It supports it going up.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump was already aware of 'where Elon Musk stood on this bill' and that he would not be changing it. 'This is one, big, beautiful bill,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'And he's sticking to it.'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nebraska needs a nuclear energy strategy
Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station near Brownville, Nebraska. (Courtesy of NPPD) In February 2021, thousands of Nebraskans found themselves in the dark of rolling blackouts. A brutal polar vortex froze wind turbines, strained natural gas supplies and exposed serious weaknesses in our energy grid. However, even as multiple power sources failed, one remained steadfast — nuclear energy. That moment was a wake-up call. We can no longer afford to treat energy policy as a matter of convenience or short-term cost. To avoid future blackouts and maintain affordable, resilient, firm and reliable power, Nebraska needs nuclear energy. Wind and solar are intermittent. Natural gas is a vital bridge fuel, but it is vulnerable to supply shocks in extreme weather. This is about building a reliable and resilient energy source that can deliver for Nebraska families, farmers and businesses when it counts. Nuclear energy, which currently generates 17% of Nebraska's power, brings unique strengths. It provides carbon-free baseload power that runs around the clock regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. During the 2021 deep freeze, Nebraska's lone nuclear plant kept running at full strength while other sources faltered. The United Nations 2021 report, 'Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options,' shows that nuclear has the lowest overall impacts on human health and the environment by any measure and from any perspective. The cost of new nuclear energy is within a penny per kilowatt-hour of other forms of new energy sources, including natural gas, wind and solar. Is that one cent too much to have a resilient, reliable power source for Nebraska? We've seen what happens when nuclear gets overlooked. Omaha Public Power District's Fort Calhoun plant and Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station accounted for about a quarter of Nebraska's net generation capabilities before Fort Calhoun was shut down in 2016. The shut down was nearly two decades ahead of schedule, a casualty of market conditions that failed to account for long-term reliability and energy needs. Hundreds of skilled jobs were lost. Our energy safety net shrank. And just a few years later, that decision looked shortsighted as the grid buckled under pressure. To avoid repeating that mistake, policymakers should ensure that energy markets properly value reliability and resilience. As 26 House Republicans made clear in a late April letter to congressional leadership, protecting the federal nuclear production tax credit (PTC) is one way to do so. It has proven a huge help in incentivizing the development of nuclear power at a time when NPPD is exploring options. For Nebraska, the credit helps create and protect hundreds of high-paying, skilled jobs, generating local tax revenue and sustaining a stable source of affordable power. Another step Congress could take is expanding investment incentives for next-generation technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs). These compact, scalable reactors can serve Nebraska's rural areas and industrial parks where large traditional plants aren't practical, offering flexibility and grid stability. Policies like the Advanced Nuclear Production Credit and bipartisan permitting reform proposals can help accelerate local deployment. U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., has advocated for nuclear's role in America's energy future on the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, where it helps Nebraska to have a voice in ensuring that our state's long-term energy interests remain protected. Nebraska's energy future isn't just about keeping the lights on. It's about protecting lives during extreme weather, powering our farms and factories and anchoring high-skilled jobs in our communities. If we want to avoid another round of blackouts, we should encourage policies that keep every reliable tool in the toolbox — including nuclear. Bruce Bostelman, a farmer and veteran from Brainard, served in the Nebraska Legislature from 2017 to 2025, including serving as chair of the Natural Resources Committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____
