LNG Is Not the Future Hawaiʻi Needs

By Lauren Ballesteros-Watanabe, Chapter Organizer and Kirsten Kagimoto, Deputy Director | Reading time: 6.75 minutes

As the world moves to phase out fossil fuels, Hawaiʻi stands at a crossroads. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is being pushed by certain proponents as a cleaner "bridge fuel," but historical examples and experiences of communities from around the world show that LNG will almost certainly become a costly and dangerous detour that threatens our islands’ environmental, cultural, and economic future.

The LNG Proposal for Hawaiʻi

Earlier this year, the Hawaiʻi State Energy Office (HSEO) released a study on alternative fuels to reduce electricity costs and carbon emissions. The study focused on replacing residual fuel oil in power generation and encouraging investments in grid infrastructure. LNG, specifically methane, was ranked as the most cost-effective transition fuel. 

More recently, Hawaiian Electric applied to retrofit two Oʻahu power plants to run on petroleum, LNG, biodiesel, and possibly hydrogen, if it becomes commercially viable. While not officially endorsed by the state, Hawaiian Electric’s proposal aligns closely with the HSEO study and Governor Green’s public endorsement of LNG as a potential interim step toward decarbonization. 

But from extraction to combustion, LNG harms people, nature, and the climate. It’s a fracking-produced fossil fuel that would expose Hawaiʻi to global price volatility and that as a whole is orders of magnitude more harmful to our climate than carbon dioxide.The risks and harms of LNG are serious enough that the Biden Administration paused new US LNG export approvals. 

Calling LNG a "bridge fuel" distracts from urgently needed investments in solar, wind, and battery storage—and delays our transition to a clean and resilient energy future.

A Political and Historical Crossroads

The debate over LNG, as we have seen time and again, represents competing priorities that often pit economic assumptions against community health and long-term resilience. 

At the core of the debate is a claim of potentially lower energy costs, and a deeper question about the kind of energy system we want for Hawaiʻi. Governor Linda Lingle opposed LNG, warning it would distract from investments in wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Her successor, Neil Abercrombie, supported LNG, paving the way for proposals like NextEra Energy’s bid to acquire Hawaiian Electric and convert the Kahe Power Plant to LNG—a plan ultimately rejected by the Public Utilities Commission after public outcry. Governor David Ige then reversed course again, saying, “It’s time to focus all of our efforts on renewables. We will oppose the building of LNG facilities.”

Now, Governor Josh Green has reopened the door to LNG. While he has issued an executive order accelerating renewable energy on neighbor islands, he has also expressed support for LNG as a temporary solution and directed the HSEO to study alternative fuels. These mixed signals combined with a lack of details for a long term plan risk locking the state into decades of fossil fuel use and deepening environmental and public health harms. 

Public Health Risks of LNG

LNG facilities emit a range of harmful pollutants—including volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and methane—that are linked to serious health problems such as respiratory illnesses, heart disease, neurological disorders, and cancer. While all fossil fuels carry health risks, but LNG presents several unique public health hazards:

• Cryogenic risks: LNG is stored at extremely low temperatures (-260°F). In the event of a leak or spill, it can cause cold burns, frostbite, or even asphyxiation.

• Explosive potential: When vaporized, LNG is heavier than air and can form flammable clouds capable of igniting at a distance far from the leak source.

• Toxic exposures: LNG infrastructure is prone to leaking methane—a potent greenhouse gas—and can also release benzene, a known carcinogen.

• Air pollutants: Burning LNG emits nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide, exacerbating respiratory and cardiovascular illness.

In 2015, New York State rejected the proposed Port Ambrose LNG terminal, citing its public health and safety concerns. In Hawaiʻi, where communities already face climate and pollution threats, the risks are even greater.

Environmental Risks

LNG infrastructure in Hawaiʻi would pose major threats to coastal ecosystems. The state’s proposed import plan involves a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) off Barber’s Point, where LNG would be transferred from enormous, specially designed tankers, converted back to gas (from liquid), and piped six miles to onshore facilities. This infrastructure—along with mooring systems and thermal discharge pipelines—would directly impact marine life and fragile ecosystems.

West Oʻahu’s nearshore waters are home to endangered local and migratory wildlife, resting and socializing dolphins, vibrant reef ecosystems, and fisheries that support subsistence and recreational use. FSRUs release chlorinated water during regasification, which can degrade water quality and harm sensitive coral reefs. Intake systems may kill small marine organisms, while increased ship traffic and construction noise disturb wildlife and disrupt feeding, mating, and migration patterns.

These risks are not speculative. In the Philippines, studies near LNG terminals in Batangas Bay caused severe water contamination and fisheries collapse—outcomes Hawaiʻi cannot afford to repeat.

These systems are also vulnerable to hurricanes, storm surge, and earthquakes. Rising seas and heat can increase the risk of gas leaks and fires, especially in dry areas like West Oʻahu.

Powering Excessive Demand is Expensive

HECO’s proposed retrofits are framed as cost-saving, but the reality is uncertain and risky. Converting oil plants to run on LNG is a complex, costly process with long timelines. Similar projects in Puerto Rico have taken 5 to 10 more years than anticipated. Hawaiʻi’s own history—like the Honolulu Rail—shows how large projects frequently run over time and budget.

LNG import facility Phillipines. Credit: AG&P

The HSEO report notes that LNG is only cost-effective under tight timelines and high demand. But why build a system that only works if we use more energy? In a climate crisis, we should prioritize reducing demand—not expanding fossil fuel use.

LNG is also tied to volatile global markets. In 2022 alone, prices doubled due to the Russia-Ukraine war. Relying on LNG means exposing Hawaiʻi to these external price shocks, despite the availability of local, stable renewables like solar and wind.

Hawaiian Electric’s proposal also hints at converting LNG infrastructure to hydrogen in the future—but this is not commercially viable today. Hydrogen requires different materials, colder storage, and expensive retrofits. 

Instead of locking ourselves into costly, long-term fossil fuel dependence, Hawaiʻi should prioritize:

• Efficiency: Reducing overall energy demand through conservation and smarter development design.

• Equity: Ensuring electricity access for low-income communities don’t bear the brunt of high bills or health risks via utility rates and disconnection reform.

• Regeneration: Creating systems that align with local capacity and ecological limits. 

LNG Undermines Climate Resilience and Energy Sovereignty

LNG development weakens Hawaiʻi’s climate and energy security. The state is legally bound to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2045. Investing in LNG diverts resources, delays solutions, and locks in fossil fuel dependence.

LNG is mostly methane, a climate super-pollutant more than 80 times stronger than CO₂ over 20 years. Even small methane leaks erase any climate benefits. Full life-cycle emissions from LNG can rival or exceed those of coal.

The infrastructure itself is not climate-resilient. FSRUs, pipelines, and storage tanks are highly vulnerable to sea level rise, hurricanes, earthquakes, and extreme heat—all of which are growing threats in Hawaiʻi. Storms can flood or damage critical systems, increasing the risks of fires, gas leaks, and explosions in coastal communities.

Additionally, LNG invites foreign corporate control. JERA, Japan’s largest LNG buyer, has expressed interest in investing in Hawaiʻi’s grid. This undermines local energy sovereignty and prioritizes foreign profits over local needs.

What We Build Now Matters

As an island chain, Hawaiʻi is uniquely vulnerable—to global supply chain disruptions, rising seas, extreme weather, and the economic shocks of fossil fuel dependency. Other island nations, like Ireland, have rejected LNG to avoid long-term fossil fuel lock-in. Hawaiʻi should do the same.

We don’t need LNG to meet our energy needs. What we truly need is the political will to scale local, community-driven solutions that reflect our values: 

• Community-owned energy and microgrids for climate resilience and development of local energy economies;

• Solar for all, especially low- and moderate-income families;

• Decentralized, resilient systems rooted in aloha ʻāina values; and

• Investments in efficiency and conservation over consumption.

Across the islands, communities are leading the way—on Molokaʻi, values-led climate initiatives, and in county-level collaborations for a more resilient and just energy future. We must now ask: are we investing in that promise—or in infrastructure that locks us into pollution, risk, and foreign dependence?

This is our moment to choose. Let’s build a future that’s clean, just, and powered by the people of Hawaiʻi—not by fossil fuel interests from overseas.