Tesla sales are down to start the year. Getty Images

Tesla sales fell 13% in the first three months of the year, another sign that Elon Musk’s once high-flying electric car company is struggling to attract buyers.

The double-digit drop is likely due to a combination of factors, including its aging lineup, competition from rivals and a backlash from Musk’s embrace of right wing politics. It also is a warning that the company’s first-quarter earnings report later this month could disappoint investors.

Tesla reported deliveries of 336,681 globally in the January to March quarter. The figure was down from sales of 387,000 in the same period a year ago. The decline came despite deep discounts, zero financing and other incentives.

Analysts polled by FactSet expected much higher deliveries of 408,000.

Dan Ives of Wedbush said in a note to clients that Tesla is seeing soft demand in the United States and China, as well as facing pressure in Europe.

“The brand crisis issues are clearly having a negative impact on Tesla...there is no debate,” he said.

Ives said that Wall Street financial analysts knew the first-quarter figures were likely to be bad, but that it was even worse than expected, calling them a “disaster on every metric.”

The sales drop came three weeks after President Donald Trump held an extraordinary press conference outside the White House in which he praised Tesla, blasted boycotts against the company and bought a Tesla himself while TV cameras rolled in an effort to help lift sales.

“I don’t like what’s happening to you,” said Trump, before slipping into a red Model S and exclaiming, “Wow. That’s beautiful.”

After falling as much as 6% in early Wednesday, Tesla stock shot up more than 5% in afternoon trading after a report from Politico, citing anonymous sources, that Musk may soon step down from leadership of his Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting group that has led to tens of thousands of federal workers losing their jobs.

Tesla investors have complained the DOGE work has diverted Musk's focus from Tesla, where he is the CEO. On Tuesday, New York City's comptroller overseeing pension funds down $300 million this year on Tesla holdings called for a lawsuit accusing a distracted Musk of "driving Tesla off a financial cliff.”

Tesla’s stock has plunged by roughly half since hitting a mid-December record as expectations of a lighter regulatory touch and big profits with Donald Trump as president were replaced by fear that the boycott of Musk's cars and other problems could hit the company hard.

Analysts are still not sure exactly how much the fall in sales is due to the protests or other factors. Electric car sales have been sluggish in general, and Tesla in particular is suffering as car buyers hold off from buying its bestselling Model Y while waiting for an updated version.

Still, even bullish financial analysts who earlier downplayed the backlash to Musk’s polarizing political stances are acknowledging that it is hurting the company, something that Musk also recently acknowledged.

“This is a very expensive job,” Musk said at a Wisconsin rally on Sunday, referring to his DOGE role. “My Tesla stock and the stock of everyone who holds Tesla has gone roughly in half."

The protests come as the Austin, Texas electric vehicle maker faces fierce competition from other EV makers offering vastly improved models, including those of BYD. The Chinese EV giant unveiled in March a technology that allows it cars to charge up in just five to eight minutes.

Tesla is expected to report earnings of 48 cents per share for the first quarter later this month, up 7% from a year earlier, according to a survey of financial analysts who the car company by research firm FactSet.

Nearly all of Tesla’s sales in the quarter came from the smaller and less-expensive Models 3 and Y, with the company selling less than 13,000 more expensive models, which include X and S as well as the Cybertruck.

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

Judge once again rejects Texas-based Tesla's multi-billion-dollar pay package for Elon Musk — now what?

hard no

For a second time, a Delaware judge has nullified a pay package that Tesla had awarded its CEO, Elon Musk, that once was valued at $56 billion.

Last week, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick turned aside a request from Musk's lawyers to reverse a ruling she announced in January that had thrown out the compensation plan. The judge ruled then that Musk effectively controlled Tesla's board and had engineered the outsize pay package during sham negotiations.

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information.

In their defense, Tesla's board members asserted that the shareholders who ratified the pay plan a second time in June had done so after receiving full disclosures, thereby curing all the problems the judge had cited in her January ruling. As a result, they argued, Musk deserved the pay package for having raised Tesla's market value by billions of dollars.

McCormick rejected that argument. In her 103-page opinion, she ruled that under Delaware law, Tesla's lawyers had no grounds to reverse her January ruling “based on evidence they created after trial.”

What will Musk and Tesla do now?

On Monday night, Tesla posted on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that the company will appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court, the only state appellate court Tesla can pursue. Experts say a ruling would likely come in less than a year.

“The ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs' lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners — the shareholders,” Tesla argued.

Later, on X, Musk unleashed a blistering attack on the judge, asserting that McCormick is “a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge.”

What do experts say about the case?

Legal authorities generally suggest that McCormick’s ruling was sound and followed the law. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said that in his view, McCormick was right to rule that after Tesla lost its case in the original trial, it created improper new evidence by asking shareholders to ratify the pay package a second time.

Had she allowed such a claim, he said, it would cause a major shift in Delaware’s laws against conflicts of interest given the unusually close relationship between Musk and Tesla’s board.

“Delaware protects investors — that’s what she did,” said Elson, who has followed the court for more than three decades. “Just because you’re a ‘superstar CEO’ doesn’t put you in a separate category.”

Elson said he thinks investors would be reluctant to put money into Delaware companies if there were exceptions to the law for “special people.”

What will the Delaware Supreme Court do?

Elson said that in his opinion, the court is likely to uphold McCormick's ruling.

Can Tesla appeal to federal courts?

Experts say no. Rulings on state laws are normally left to state courts. Brian Dunn, program director for the Institute of Compensation Studies at Cornell University, said it's been his experience that Tesla has no choice but to stay in the Delaware courts for this compensation package.

Tesla has moved its legal headquarters to Texas. Does that matter?

The company could try to reconstitute the pay package and seek approval in Texas, where it may expect more friendlier judges. But Dunn, who has spent 40 years as an executive compensation consultant, said it's likely that some other shareholder would challenge the award in Texas because it's excessive compared with other CEOs' pay plans.

“If they just want to turn around and deliver him $56 billion, I can't believe somebody wouldn't want to litigate it,” Dunn said. “It's an unconscionable amount of money.”

Would a new pay package be even larger?

Almost certainly. Tesla stock is trading at 15 times the exercise price of stock options in the current package in Delaware, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a note to investors. Tesla's share price has doubled in the past six months, Jonas wrote. At Monday’s closing stock price, the Musk package is now worth $101.4 billion, according to Equilar, an executive data firm.

And Musk has asked for a subsequent pay package that would give him 25 percent of Tesla's voting shares. Musk has said he is uncomfortable moving further into artificial intelligence with the company if he doesn't have 25 percent control. He currently holds about 13 percent of Tesla's outstanding shares.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has raised concerns about Tesla's public messaging on its "Full Self-Driving" system. Photo via tesla.com

US safety agency pressures Texas-based Tesla over full self-driving claims, crash concerns

The U.S. government's highway safety agency says Tesla is telling drivers in public statements that its vehicles can drive themselves, conflicting with owners manuals and briefings with the agency saying the electric vehicles need human supervision.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is asking the company to “revisit its communications” to make sure messages are consistent with user instructions.

The request came in a May email to the company from Gregory Magno, a division chief with the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. It was attached to a letter seeking information on a probe into crashes involving Tesla's “Full Self-Driving” system in low-visibility conditions. The letter was posted Friday on the agency's website.

The agency began the investigation in October after getting reports of four crashes involving “Full Self-Driving" when Teslas encountered sun glare, fog and airborne dust. An Arizona pedestrian was killed in one of the crashes.

Critics, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have long accused Tesla of using deceptive names for its partially automated driving systems, including “Full Self-Driving” and “Autopilot,” both of which have been viewed by owners as fully autonomous.

The letter and email raise further questions about whether Full Self-Driving will be ready for use without human drivers on public roads, as Tesla CEO Elon Musk has predicted. Much of Tesla's stock valuation hinges on the company deploying a fleet of autonomous robotaxis.

Musk, who has promised autonomous vehicles before, said the company plans to have autonomous Models Y and 3 running without human drivers next year. Robotaxis without steering wheels would be available in 2026 starting in California and Texas, he said.

A message was sent Friday seeking comment from Tesla.

In the email, Magno writes that Tesla briefed the agency in April on an offer of a free trial of “Full Self-Driving” and emphasized that the owner's manual, user interface and a YouTube video tell humans that they have to remain vigilant and in full control of their vehicles.

But Magno cited seven posts or reposts by Tesla's account on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that Magno said indicated that Full Self-Driving is capable of driving itself.

“Tesla's X account has reposted or endorsed postings that exhibit disengaged driver behavior,” Magno wrote. “We believe that Tesla's postings conflict with its stated messaging that the driver is to maintain continued control over the dynamic driving task."

The postings may encourage drivers to see Full Self-Driving, which now has the word “supervised” next to it in Tesla materials, to view the system as a “chauffeur or robotaxi rather than a partial automation/driver assist system that requires persistent attention and intermittent intervention by the driver,” Magno wrote.

On April 11, for instance, Tesla reposted a story about a man who used Full Self-Driving to travel 13 miles (21 kilometers) from his home to an emergency room during a heart attack just after the free trial began on April 1. A version of Full Self-Driving helped the owner "get to the hospital when he needed immediate medical attention,” the post said.

In addition, Tesla says on its website that use of Full Self-Driving and Autopilot without human supervision depends on “achieving reliability" and regulatory approval, Magno wrote. But the statement is accompanied by a video of a man driving on local roads with his hands on his knees, with a statement that, “The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself,” the email said.

In the letter seeking information on driving in low-visibility conditions, Magno wrote that the investigation will focus on the system's ability to perform in low-visibility conditions caused by “relatively common traffic occurrences.”

Drivers, he wrote, may not be told by the car that they should decide where Full Self-Driving can safely operate or fully understand the capabilities of the system.

“This investigation will consider the adequacy of feedback or information the system provides to drivers to enable them to make a decision in real time when the capability of the system has been exceeded,” Magno wrote.

The letter asks Tesla to describe all visual or audio warnings that drivers get that the system “is unable to detect and respond to any reduced visibility condition.”

The agency gave Tesla until Dec. 18 to respond to the letter, but the company can ask for an extension.

That means the investigation is unlikely to be finished by the time President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, and Trump has said he would put Musk in charge of a government efficiency commission to audit agencies and eliminate fraud. Musk spent at least $119 million in a campaign to get Trump elected, and Trump has spoken against government regulations.

Auto safety advocates fear that if Musk gains some control over NHTSA, the Full Self-Driving and other investigations into Tesla could be derailed.

Musk even floated the idea of him helping to develop national safety standards for self-driving vehicles.

“Of course the fox wants to build the henhouse,” said Michael Brooks, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit watchdog group.

He added that he can't think of anyone who would agree that a business mogul should have direct involvement in regulations that affect the mogul’s companies.

“That’s a huge problem for democracy, really,” Brooks said.

Texan Elon Musk stands to benefit from the next president. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

Election results buoy stock at Texas-based Tesla

seeing dollar signs

Shares of Tesla soared Wednesday as investors bet that the electric vehicle maker and its Texas-based CEO Elon Musk will benefit from Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

Tesla stands to make significant gains under a Trump administration with the threat of diminished subsidies for alternative energy and electric vehicles doing the most harm to smaller competitors. Trump’s plans for extensive tariffs on Chinese imports make it less likely that Chinese EVs will be sold in bulk in the U.S. anytime soon.

“Tesla has the scale and scope that is unmatched,” said Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, in a note to investors. “This dynamic could give Musk and Tesla a clear competitive advantage in a non-EV subsidy environment, coupled by likely higher China tariffs that would continue to push away cheaper Chinese EV players.”

Tesla shares jumped 14.8% Wednesday while shares of rival electric vehicle makers tumbled. Nio, based in Shanghai, fell 5.3%. Shares of electric truck maker Rivian dropped 8.3% and Lucid Group fell 5.3%.

Tesla dominates sales of electric vehicles in the U.S, with 48.9% in market share through the middle of 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Subsidies for clean energy are part of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022. It included tax credits for manufacturing, along with tax credits for consumers of electric vehicles.

Musk was one of Trump’s biggest donors, spending at least $119 million mobilizing Trump’s supporters to back the Republican nominee. He also pledged to give away $1 million a day to voters signing a petition for his political action committee.

In some ways, it has been a rocky year for Tesla, with sales and profit declining through the first half of the year. Profit did rise 17.3% in the third quarter.

The U.S. opened an investigation into the company’s “Full Self-Driving” system after reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian. The investigation covers roughly 2.4 million Teslas from the 2016 through 2024 model years.

And investors sent company shares tumbling last month after Tesla unveiled its long-awaited robotaxi at a Hollywood studio Thursday night, seeing not much progress at Tesla on autonomous vehicles while other companies have been making notable progress.

Tesla began selling the software, which is called “Full Self-Driving,” nine years ago. But there are doubts about its reliability.

The stock is now showing a 16.1% gain for the year after rising the past two days.

The Washington Post reported that Musk worked illegally in the country while on a student visa. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Texas EV entrepreneur Elon Musk called out over published report that he once worked in the US illegally

he said, he said

President Joe Biden slammed Elon Musk for hypocrisy on immigration after a published report that the Tesla CEO once worked illegally in the United States. The South Africa-born Musk denies the allegation.

“That wealthiest man in the world turned out to be an illegal worker here. No, I’m serious. He was supposed to be in school when he came on a student visa. He wasn’t in school. He was violating the law. And he’s talking about all these illegals coming our way?” Biden said while campaigning on Saturday in Pittsburgh at a union hall.

The Washington Post reported that Musk worked illegally in the country while on a student visa. The newspaper, citing company documents, former business associates and court documents, said Musk arrived in Palo Alto, California in 1995 for a graduate program at Stanford University "but never enrolled in courses, working instead on his startup. ”

Musk wrote on X in reply to a video post of Biden’s comments: “I was in fact allowed to work in the US." Musk added, “The Biden puppet is lying.”

Investors in Musk’s company, Zip2, were concerned about the possibility of their founder being deported, according to the report, and gave him a deadline for obtaining a work visa. The newspaper also cited a 2005 email from Musk to his Tesla co-founders acknowledging that he did not have authorization to be in the U.S. when he started Zip2.

According to the account, that email was submitted as evidence in a now-closed California defamation lawsuit and said that Musk had applied to Stanford so he could stay in the country legally.

Musk is today the world’s richest man. He has committed more than $70 million to help Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and other GOP candidates win on Nov. 5, and is one of the party's biggest donors this campaign season. He has been headlining events in the White House race’s final stretch, often echoing Trump's dark rhetoric against immigration.

Trump has pledged to give Musk a role in his administration if he wins next month.

There was no immediate response to messages left with X and Tesla seeking Musk’s comment.

The strong performance changed the trajectory of the year for the Austin, Texas-based company, which had seen sales and profits decline in the first two quarters. Photo courtesy of Tesla

Tesla posts surprise $2.17B third-quarter profit, up from a year ago

by the numbers

Tesla’s third-quarter net income rose 17.3 percent compared with a year ago on stronger electric vehicle sales, and an optimistic CEO Elon Musk predicted 20 percent to 30 percent sales growth next year.

The strong performance changed the trajectory of the year for the Austin, Texas-based company, which had seen sales and profits decline in the first two quarters.

In its letter to investors, Tesla predicted slight growth in vehicle deliveries this year, better than the 1.8 million delivered worldwide in 2023.

Tesla said Wednesday that it made $2.17 billion from July through September, more than the $1.85 billion profit it posted in the same period of 2023.

The earnings came despite price cuts and low-interest financing that helped boost sales of the company’s aging vehicle lineup during the quarter. It was Tesla’s first year-over-year quarterly profit increase of 2024, a year plagued by falling sales and prices.

Revenue in the quarter rose 7.8 percent to $25.18 billion, falling short of Wall Street analysts who estimated it at $25.47 billion, according to FactSet. Tesla made an adjusted 72 cents per share, soundly beating analyst expectations of 59 cents.

Shares in Tesla Inc. soared nearly 12 percent in trading after Wednesday’s closing bell.

On a conference call with analysts, Musk said the profit increase came despite a challenging environment for auto sales with still-high loan interest rates. “I think if you look at EV companies worldwide, to the best of my knowledge, no EV company is even profitable,” he said.

Musk qualified his prediction that Tesla would post 2025 vehicle sales growth of 20 percent to 30 percent by saying it could be changed by “negative external events.”

Earlier this month Tesla said it sold 462,890 vehicles from July through September, up 6.4 percent from a year ago. The sales numbers were better than analysts had expected.

The letter said that Tesla is on track to start production of new vehicles, including more affordable models, in the first half of next year, something investors had been looking for. The new vehicles will use parts from its current models and will be made on the same assembly lines as Tesla’s current model lineup, the letter said.

The new vehicles were not identified and the price was nebulous. Musk has said in the past the company is working on a car that will cost about $25,000, but said Wednesday that a new affordable vehicle would cost under $30,000 including government tax incentives.

Earlier this month, the company showed off a purpose-built two-seat robotaxi called “Cybercab” at a glitzy event at a Hollywood movie studio. Musk said it would be in production before 2027 and cost around $25,000.

By using parts from existing models and the current manufacturing system, Tesla won’t reach cost reductions that it previously expected using a new manufacturing setup.

Tesla said it reduced the cost of goods per vehicle to its lowest level yet, about $35,100.

The company’s widely watched gross profit margin, the percentage of revenue it gets to keep after expenses, rose to 19.8 percent, the highest in a year, but still smaller than the peak of 29.1 percent in the first quarter of 2022.

During the quarter, Tesla’s revenue from regulatory credits purchased by other automakers who can’t meet government emissions targets hit $739 million, the second highest quarter in company history.

Musk said Tesla's “Full Self-Driving” system is improving and would drive more safely than humans in the second quarter of next year. Despite the name, Teslas using “Full Self-Driving” cannot drive themselves, and human drivers must be ready to intervene at all times.

The company, he said, is offering an autonomous ride-hailing service to employees in the San Francisco Bay Area, but it currently has human safety drivers. It expects to start a robotaxi service for the public in California and Texas next year, he said.

Musk also conceded that it may not be possible to reach autonomous driving safety levels with older editions of “Full Self-Driving” hardware. If it can't do that, Tesla will upgrade computers in the older cars for free, he said.

The self-driving claims come just five days after U.S. safety regulators opened an investigation into the system's cameras to see in low-visibility conditions such as sun glare, fog and airborne dust. The probe raised doubts about whether the system will be ready to drive on its own next year.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in documents posted Friday that it opened the probe of 2.4 million Teslas after the company reported four crashes in low visibility conditions. In one, a woman who stopped to help after a crash on an Arizona freeway was struck and killed by a Tesla.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions."

Edward Jones analyst Jeff Windau said the earnings report and conference call showed that Tesla is making money on software, a business with high profit margins.

Still, he has a “hold” rating on the stock as the company moves toward robotics and autonomous vehicles. “They’ve got a lot of challenging goals out there,” he said.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston researchers make headway on developing low-cost sodium-ion batteries

energy storage

A new study by researchers from Rice University’s Department of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, Baylor University and the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram has introduced a solution that could help develop more affordable and sustainable sodium-ion batteries.

The findings were recently published in the journal Advanced Functional Materials.

The team worked with tiny cone- and disc-shaped carbon materials from oil and gas industry byproducts with a pure graphitic structure. The forms allow for more efficient energy storage with larger sodium and potassium ions, which is a challenge for anodes in battery research. Sodium and potassium are more widely available and cheaper than lithium.

“For years, we’ve known that sodium and potassium are attractive alternatives to lithium,” Pulickel Ajayan, the Benjamin M. and Mary Greenwood Anderson Professor of Engineering at Rice, said in a news release. “But the challenge has always been finding carbon-based anode materials that can store these larger ions efficiently.”

Lithium-ion batteries traditionally rely on graphite as an anode material. However, traditional graphite structures cannot efficiently store sodium or potassium energy, since the atoms are too big and interactions become too complex to slide in and out of graphite’s layers. The cone and disc structures “offer curvature and spacing that welcome sodium and potassium ions without the need for chemical doping (the process of intentionally adding small amounts of specific atoms or molecules to change its properties) or other artificial modifications,” according to the study.

“This is one of the first clear demonstrations of sodium-ion intercalation in pure graphitic materials with such stability,” Atin Pramanik, first author of the study and a postdoctoral associate in Ajayan’s lab, said in the release. “It challenges the belief that pure graphite can’t work with sodium.”

In lab tests, the carbon cones and discs stored about 230 milliamp-hours of charge per gram (mAh/g) by using sodium ions. They still held 151 mAh/g even after 2,000 fast charging cycles. They also worked with potassium-ion batteries.

“We believe this discovery opens up a new design space for battery anodes,” Ajayan added in the release. “Instead of changing the chemistry, we’re changing the shape, and that’s proving to be just as interesting.”

ExxonMobil lands major partnership for clean hydrogen facility in Baytown

power deal

Exxon Mobil and Japanese import/export company Marubeni Corp. have signed a long-term offtake agreement for 250,000 tonnes of low-carbon ammonia per year from ExxonMobil’s forthcoming facility in Baytown, Texas.

“This is another positive step forward for our landmark project,” Barry Engle, president of ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions, said in a news release. “By using American-produced natural gas we can boost global energy supply, support Japan’s decarbonization goals and create jobs at home. Our strong relationship with Marubeni sets the stage for delivering low-carbon ammonia from the U.S. to Japan for years to come."

The companies plan to produce low-carbon hydrogen with approximately 98% of CO2 removed and low-carbon ammonia. Marubeni will supply the ammonia mainly to Kobe Power Plant, a subsidiary of Kobe Steel, and has also agreed to acquire an equity stake in ExxonMobil’s low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia facility, which is expected to be one of the largest of its kind.

The Baytown facility aims to produce up to 1 billion cubic feet daily of “virtually carbon-free” hydrogen. It can also produce more than 1 million tons of low-carbon ammonia per year. A final investment decision is expected in 2025 that will be contingent on government policy and necessary regulatory permits, according to the release.

The Kobe Power Plant aims to co-fire low-carbon ammonia with existing fuel, and reduce CO2 emissions by Japan’s fiscal year of 2030. Marubeni also aims to assist the decarbonization of Japan’s power sector and steel manufacturing industry, chemical industry, transportation industry and various others sectors.

“Marubeni will take this first step together with ExxonMobil in the aim of establishing a global low-carbon ammonia supply chain for Japan through the supply of low-carbon ammonia to the Kobe Power Plant,” Yoshiaki Yokota, senior managing executive officer at Marubeni Corp., added in the news release. “Additionally, we aim to collaborate beyond this supply chain and strive towards the launch of a global market for low-carbon ammonia. We hope to continue to actively cooperate with ExxonMobil, with a view of utilizing this experience and relationship we have built to strategically decarbonize our power projects in Japan and Southeast Asia in the near future.”

Houston expert: The role of U.S. LNG in global energy markets

guest column

The debate over U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports is too often framed in misleading, oversimplified terms. The reality is clear: LNG is not just a temporary fix or a bridge fuel, it is a fundamental pillar of global energy security and economic stability. U.S. LNG is already reducing coal use in Asia, strengthening Europe’s energy balance, and driving economic growth at home. Turning away from LNG exports now would be a shortsighted mistake, undermining both U.S. economic interests and global energy security.

Ken Medlock, Senior Director of the Baker Institute’s Center for Energy Studies, provides a fact-based assessment of the U.S. LNG exports that cuts through the noise. His analysis, consistent with McKinsey work, confirms that U.S. LNG is essential to balancing global energy markets for the decades ahead. While infrastructure challenges and environmental concerns exist, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. If the U.S. fails to embrace its leadership in LNG, we risk giving up our position to competitors, weakening our energy resilience, and damaging national security.

LNG Export Licenses: Options, Not Guarantees

A common but deeply flawed argument against expanding LNG exports is the assumption that granting licenses guarantees unlimited exports. This is simply incorrect. As Medlock puts it, “Licenses are options, not guarantees. Projects do not move forward if they are unable to find commercial footing.”

This is critical: government approvals do not dictate market outcomes. LNG projects must navigate economic viability, infrastructure feasibility, and global demand before becoming operational. This reality should dispel fears that expanded licensing will automatically lead to an uncontrolled surge in exports or domestic price spikes. The market, not government restrictions, should determine which projects succeed.

Canada’s Role in U.S. Gas Markets

The U.S. LNG debate often overlooks an important factor: pipeline imports from Canada. The U.S. and Canadian markets are deeply intertwined, yet critics often ignore this reality. Medlock highlights that “the importance to domestic supply-demand balance of our neighbors to the north and south cannot be overstated.”

Infrastructure Constraints and Price Volatility

One of the most counterproductive policies the U.S. could adopt is restricting LNG infrastructure development. Ironically, such restrictions would not only hinder exports but also drive up domestic energy prices. Medlock’s report explains this paradox: “Constraints that either raise development costs or limit the ability to develop infrastructure tend to make domestic supply less elastic. Ironically, this has the impact of limiting exports and raising domestic prices.”

The takeaway is straightforward: blocking infrastructure development is a self-inflicted wound. It stifles market efficiency, raises costs for American consumers, and weakens U.S. competitiveness in global energy markets. McKinsey research confirms that well-planned infrastructure investments lead to greater price stability and a more resilient energy sector. The U.S. should be accelerating, not hindering, these investments.

Short-Run vs. Long-Run Impacts on Domestic Prices

Critics of LNG exports often confuse short-term price fluctuations with long-term market trends. This is a mistake. Medlock underscores that “analysis that claims overly negative domestic price impacts due to exports tend to miss the distinction between short-run and long-run elasticity.”

Short-term price shifts are inevitable, driven by seasonal demand and supply disruptions. But long-term trends tell a different story: as infrastructure improves and production expands, markets adjust, and price impacts moderate. McKinsey analysis suggests supply elasticity increases as producers respond to price signals. Policy decisions should be grounded in this broader economic reality, not reactionary fears about temporary price movements.

Assessing the Emissions Debate

The argument that restricting U.S. LNG exports will lower global emissions is fundamentally flawed. In fact, the opposite is true. Medlock warns against “engineering scenarios that violate basic economic principles to induce particular impacts.” He emphasizes that evaluating emissions must be done holistically. “Constraining U.S. LNG exports will likely mean Asian countries will continue to turn to coal for power system balance,” a move that would significantly increase global emissions.

McKinsey’s research reinforces that, on a lifecycle basis, U.S. LNG produces fewer emissions than coal. That said, there is room for improvement, and efforts should focus on minimizing methane leakage and optimizing gas production efficiency.

However, the broader point remains: restricting LNG on environmental grounds ignores the global energy trade-offs at play. A rational approach would address emissions concerns while still recognizing the role of LNG in the global energy system.

The DOE’s Commonwealth LNG Authorization

The Department of Energy’s recent conditional approval of the Commonwealth LNG project is a step in the right direction. It signals that economic growth, energy security, and market demand remain key considerations in regulatory decisions. Medlock’s analysis makes it clear that LNG exports will be driven by market forces, and McKinsey’s projections show that global demand for flexible, reliable LNG is only increasing.

The U.S. should not limit itself with restrictive policies when the rest of the world is demanding more LNG. This is an opportunity to strengthen our position as a global energy leader, create jobs, and ensure long-term energy security.

Conclusion

The U.S. LNG debate must move beyond fear-driven narratives and focus on reality. The facts are clear: LNG exports strengthen energy security, drive economic growth, and reduce global emissions by displacing coal.

Instead of restrictive policies that limit LNG’s potential, the U.S. should focus on expanding infrastructure, maintaining market flexibility, and supporting innovation to further reduce emissions. The energy transition will be shaped by market realities, not unrealistic expectations.

The U.S. has an opportunity to lead. But leadership requires embracing economic logic, investing in infrastructure, and ensuring our policies are guided by facts, not political expediency. LNG is a critical part of the global energy landscape, and it’s time to recognize its long-term strategic value.

------------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.