The LNG Rulebook Runs on a 2001 Standard. The Rewrite Has a Catch.

The United States is the largest LNG exporter on the planet, and the federal safety rulebook for its export plants is built on an industry standard from 2001.¹ That standard has been rewritten seven times since. Washington stopped updating its copy in 2006. On Nov. 3 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration finally proposed to catch up. I like most of what is in it. But one clause, tucked into the design section, raises the bar for exactly the kind of Gulf Coast export plant the country is racing to build, and grandfathers the projects that already have their approvals. That is where I think the investor story is.

Key Highlights

• The gap: PHMSA's Part 193 rules still incorporate NFPA 59A-2001 for most purposes. The proposal swaps in the 2026 edition, which runs 65 pages of mandatory content across 19 chapters versus 36 pages and 11 chapters in 2001.²
• The savings: PHMSA estimates annualized cost savings of about $98 million, discounted at 3%, and says many savings could not be quantified.³ The American Action Forum counted it as the week's biggest cost-cutter, at just over $1 billion in total savings.⁴
• The build-out: Eight operating export terminals provide about 17.0 Bcf/d of capacity, and 16 more projects in or near construction would add about 31.28 Bcf/d.⁵
• The catch: Proposed Section 193.203 would require Classification B structures at FERC-certificated import and export terminals to withstand a 10,000-year wind rather than the 1,700-year wind in NFPA 59A-2026. In Cameron, Louisiana that moves the design wind from 150 mph to 172 mph.⁶
• The clock: Comments are due Jan. 4, 2027.⁷

What PHMSA Actually Proposed

Start with the plain version. PHMSA regulates the safety of LNG plants that connect to the pipeline system, from small peak-shaving tanks run by utilities to the giant export terminals on the Gulf. The number of plants under its jurisdiction rose from 121 in 2010 to 181 in 2024.⁵ The rules those plants follow were written when most of them were small storage sites.

The proposal does four big things. It makes the mandatory chapters of NFPA 59A-2026 the core of Part 193, along with more than 50 other industry standards that edition references.⁸ It lets operators site new equipment with a quantitative risk assessment instead of the old fixed exclusion zones. It lets FERC-jurisdictional plants swap the prescriptive maintenance rulebook for a process-hazard-analysis program. And it creates a separate track for permanent small-scale plants, a mandate Congress handed PHMSA in 2016.⁹

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy put it bluntly. "The only thing standing in our way is outdated red tape," he said.¹⁰ PHMSA Administrator Paul Roberti went further, which I appreciate: "we have let those regulations stagnate, relying on an outdated version of an industry standard from more than twenty years ago".¹¹

You rarely hear a regulator say that about its own rules. Credit where it is due.

The Mechanism: Why a Twenty-Year-Old Standard Costs Money

Here's the part most coverage skips. An outdated rulebook does not just sit there. It forces every operator who wants to use a newer, safer technology to ask permission one project at a time.

PHMSA says it plainly in the proposal. Adopting the 2026 edition "would reduce certain compliance costs by allowing LNG operators to use those practices and technologies without obtaining special permits or waivers".¹² The examples it lists are membrane tanks, single-walled ASME containers and pipe-in-pipe systems. None of those are exotic. They are what the industry already builds overseas.

So the cost of an old rule is not the paperwork. It is the waiver queue. Every special permit is a delay, a legal bill and a bit of uncertainty that lenders price in. Multiply that across 16 export projects and you get real money.

The siting change matters even more. Under the current approach, plants are laid out with conservative, simplified exclusion zones. The new chapter 19 path quantifies the actual probability of a release and the actual risk to people nearby, then compares it to explicit thresholds: an individual risk below 5 in 100,000 per year for land the operator controls, and below 3 in 10 million for sensitive sites outside.¹³ PHMSA expects the QRA approach "could enable investment in additional capacity at existing locations".¹⁴

Read that again. Additional capacity at existing locations. That is a brownfield expansion story.

And operators would not need PHMSA's advance approval to choose the QRA route, or for the hazard-model software they use.¹⁵ PHMSA itself says those review delays "have served as a barrier to innovation and investment." I could not have written that line better.

The Quiet Clause: Who Gets Grandfathered

Now the catch. Two pieces of the proposal pull in opposite directions, and you need both to see who wins.

The first is a broader grandfather clause. Proposed Section 193.3(a) says the new siting, design and construction rules do not apply retroactively "to existing LNG facilities or to proposed LNG facilities that an appropriate authority approved before the requirements went into effect".¹⁶ Van Ness Feldman calls the wider reading of the statute "a significant departure" from PHMSA's past practice, because it now covers fire protection, security and cathodic protection systems, not just tanks and piping.¹⁷ Updated siting rules would also get a five-year delayed compliance date.¹⁸

The second is the wind clause. NFPA 59A-2026 asks for a 1,700-year design wind on Classification B structures. PHMSA wants 10,000 years at FERC-certificated import and export terminals, and admits it "could entail non-trivial compliance costs" without putting a number on them.⁶ Its own example is Cameron, Louisiana, where the design wind goes from 150 mph to 172 mph. That is nearly 15% more wind, and wind load on a structure rises faster than wind speed.

Put those together and the shape is clear. Plants already running, and projects already approved, keep the old design basis. The next wave of approvals, the ones still in the queue when a final rule takes effect, carry the tougher wind standard.

That combination has consequences.

The Free-Market Read

I want fewer rules. I mean it. And most of this proposal is the right kind of deregulation: the government admitting that private engineers, through a consensus standards body, have done better work over 20 years than a frozen federal text, and letting operators use that work without begging for waivers.

That is how it should go. Standards bodies like NFPA iterate because the people who write them have skin in the game. Their members run the plants, insure the plants and get sued when the plants fail. A federal copy that sits untouched for two decades has none of those feedback loops.

The risk-based siting path is even better. It replaces a blunt rule with a price signal of sorts: show your actual risk, show your mitigation, and build what the numbers support. That rewards the operator who invests in safety, rather than the one who happens to own a big empty parcel.

But pro-market is not pro-incumbent, and I will not pretend the wind clause is neutral. A rule that grandfathers every approved project and then raises the bar for everyone after is, in practice, a moat for whoever got their permits first. I'm not saying PHMSA intends that. A 10,000-year wind on the Gulf Coast may be defensible on safety grounds, and the agency at least proposes to confine it to the big FERC terminals. But if you are a new entrant hoping to compete on cost, you just got a tougher design basis than the plant next door.

The honest critique is not "less safety." It is "the same safety rule for everyone." If 10,000-year wind matters, it matters for an existing tank as much as a new one. If it doesn't, NFPA's 1,700 years should do. I'd want to see PHMSA cost it out before it becomes final, and you should too.

The Numbers Investors Should Know

The U.S. exported about 15.1 Bcf/d of LNG in 2024, roughly 21% of global supply.¹⁹ Europe took 68% of U.S.-origin volumes from January to November 2025.¹⁹ The 16 projects in the pipeline would almost double operating capacity.

On savings, there are two numbers floating around, and you should know the difference. PHMSA's own estimate is about $98 million a year, annualized at a 3% discount rate.³ The press release rounds that to $100 million a year.¹¹ The American Action Forum's "just over $1 billion" is a total over the analysis period, not an annual figure.²⁰

Either way, the dollar savings are small next to the industry's cash flows. That's fine. The real value is in time: fewer waivers, faster siting decisions on brownfield sites, and no PHMSA sign-off needed on modeling software. In LNG, a month saved on a multibillion-dollar project is worth more than a year of compliance savings.

The Bear Case Against My View

First, this is a proposal. Comments close Jan. 4, 2027, and a meeting of PHMSA's advisory committees is still to be scheduled.²¹ A final rule is still to come, and it could change.

Second, the proposal adds burdens alongside the relief. It expands incident reporting to cover releases of ethane, ethylene, propane, butane, hydrogen sulfide and anhydrous ammonia, not just LNG and refrigerants.²² PHMSA also concedes some new compliance costs could not be quantified.

Third, the safety case for stricter wind design is real. The Gulf Coast takes hurricanes. If a plant fails in a storm, the people who pay first live nearby, and a single serious accident could do more damage to the industry's license to operate than any rule could. I don't dismiss that. My point is about applying the rule evenly.

And fourth, rules are not the binding constraint on U.S. LNG right now. Prices, contracts and global demand are. If Asian and European buyers stop signing 20-year deals, no amount of streamlining fills a terminal.

The Idea: Venture Global (VG)

Venture Global builds export plants out of factory-made, mid-scale liquefaction modules, and it is the cleanest way I can see to play both halves of this rule.

The fundamentals just got better. On Nov. 10 it reported third-quarter revenue of $4.8 billion, up 43%, and consolidated adjusted EBITDA of $2.6 billion, up 69%, on 124 cargos.²³ It raised 2026 EBITDA guidance to $10.0 billion to $10.3 billion from $8.7 billion to $9.1 billion.²⁴ Plaquemines Phase 1 reached commercial operations on Oct. 31, and the company now targets first LNG at CP2 in mid-2027, about 24 months after its Phase 1 final investment decision.²⁵

Why does the rule help? Because its next growth is brownfield. Venture Global is targeting a final investment decision in early 2027 on a 10 mtpa expansion at CP2, and mid-2027 on a Plaquemines expansion of eight mid-scale trains totaling 6.4 mtpa.^{25, 26} Adding capacity next to existing plants is exactly where PHMSA says QRA siting pays off. The broader grandfather clause also protects the plants it already runs and the projects already approved.

What the market may be missing is that the wind clause cuts the other way for those same expansions. CP2 sits in Cameron Parish, the very place PHMSA uses as its 150 mph to 172 mph example.²⁷ The CP2 expansion, filed at FERC on May 26, 2026 for about 11.7 mtpa of added peak capacity, is still under review.²⁸ If it is approved after a final PHMSA rule takes effect, it could face the tougher design basis. I think that risk is manageable and that the siting and maintenance relief outweighs it, but it's the variable to watch, and it is cheap to watch: it is in the comment docket, PHMSA-2019-0091.

At $13.34 on Nov. 12, Venture Global has a market value of about $33.4 billion and sits 24% below its 52-week high of $17.62.²⁹ That's roughly 3.3 times the midpoint of its new 2026 EBITDA guidance, before counting its large project debt. The trailing P/E of 6.4 flatters the picture: third-quarter net income included a $1.4 billion non-cash gain on interest rate swaps.²⁶

The risks are not small. Venture Global carries heavy project debt; CP2 credit facility commitments alone total $20.7 billion.³⁰ And LNG prices can fall: the quarter benefited from a net sales price of $10.16 per MMBtu, up from $8.92 a year earlier.³⁰

What would prove me wrong: if the final rule keeps the 10,000-year wind and applies it to the CP2 and Plaquemines expansions, and Venture Global's next update shows a cost or timing hit to either FID. Or if CP2's first LNG slips past mid-2027. Either one would tell you the rule's relief is not reaching the company that should benefit most.

For contrast, Cheniere, which I covered as the Idea on Oct. 20, gets the cleanest version of the grandfather benefit, but at $310.03 its stock sits about 6% below its 52-week high of $330.73.³¹ I keep score on every idea here, winners and losers: the FMR Idea Scorecard.

What To Watch Next

Jan. 4, 2027 is the date. That's the comment deadline, and I'd expect the operators and their trade groups to push hard on two things: the cost of the 10,000-year wind clause, and whether the risk-based maintenance option should reach more than just FERC plants. I've added it to the Deregulation Investor's Catalyst Calendar.

The second thing to watch is FERC. This proposal pairs with FERC's own push to stop LNG plants from seeking approval for every replaced part, which I wrote about in FERC Wants LNG Plants to Stop Asking Permission for Every Part. Two agencies are moving the same direction at once. That doesn't happen often.

The third is the race between two calendars: FERC's review of the CP2 expansion and PHMSA's final rule. If the expansion's approval comes first, it keeps the old design basis. If the rule comes first, it doesn't. Watch the dates closely. The cycle does not wait for consensus.

Related analysis

• The EPA Just Repealed Its Power Plant Rules. Then It Went Further.
• FERC Told PJM You Cannot Curtail Your Way Out of a Shortage
• The NRC Put a Clock on Reactor Hearings. Constellation Has 12 Filings Coming.

The Free Markets Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Free Markets Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security. The Free Markets Report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of our investment services or performance. THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT RECEIVE IT. THE INVESTMENTS DISCUSSED MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL INVESTORS. INVESTORS MUST MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN PARTICULAR FINANCIAL SITUATIONS AND OBJECTIVES. This report is not an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services in any jurisdiction in which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is not authorized to provide such services. All investments involve risk, including the risk of loss of principal. No representation is being made that any security, account, or strategy is or is likely to achieve results similar to those shown. Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives, and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC's charges and expenses. This report is not a prospectus and does not contain all of the information necessary to fully evaluate any security or strategy discussed, including, but not limited to, the risk of adverse effects of related market developments. You should not rely solely on the information contained in this report, and should seek advice based on your situation from a licensed investment professional. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of any investment product before investing. This report may not be copied or distributed without the express written consent of Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. Any decisions made based on any or all of the information in this writing are the sole responsibility of the user, and the user should exercise caution and take appropriate advice before acting.