Skip to content
MarketScale
‹ Back to IndustriesEnergy

Do Less US Gas Exports Mean Lower Costs for Businesses?

Three Key Points: Like most industries, higher energy prices for one could usually mean higher profits for another, even in a B2B context. Government should do its best to maintain fairness in the marketplace without picking “winners and losers.” Uncertain federal action is forcing suppliers and consumers in the energy industry to be realistic…

This story was produced through MarketScale. See how Energy teams put it to work with Customer Stories & Case Studies.

Share
Do Less US Gas Exports Mean Lower Costs for Businesses?

Get featured

Want MarketScale to feature Energy?

Book a 15-minute demo and we'll map your Energy expertise to the content buyers are searching for.

Book a demo

Three Key Points:

  1. Like most industries, higher energy prices for one could usually mean higher profits for another, even in a B2B context.
  2. Government should do its best to maintain fairness in the marketplace without picking “winners and losers.”
  3. Uncertain federal action is forcing suppliers and consumers in the energy industry to be realistic about what they can and can’t control, and whether they’re up for the challenge of staying afloat in exports.

Commentary:

The Industrial Energy Consumers of America recently asked the United States Department of Energy to temper liquefied natural gas exports in order to keep at-home supply high. According to the IECA, because an increased pace of US Gas Exports is leading to inflation in the market, this request comes from a desire to keep energy costs low for the consumer and industrial customers. MarketScale asked Aaron Alpeter, Principal and Founder of Izba, how moves like these could alleviate pressure while still allowing companies to recoup their investments.

What Aaron Alpeter Said:

Think you have to first start off by asking which pressures are you trying to alleviate? Which companies are you hoping to allow to recoup their investments? Recall, there’s always two parties to every transaction in higher prices for one usually can mean higher profits for another. Something that’s good for bad for one person could be good for another person and vice versa.

Personally I believe, the government should do its best to maintain fairness in the marketplace. But the challenge is that doing so in such a way so that you avoid picking winners and losers. I don’t think that there’s a one size fits all right or wrong answer. You have to look at each circumstance individually. So, for example, if a supplier had done its research and concluded that there was a market wave that was imminent, maybe it was a few years out and they decided to deficit spend for a few years in advance of that so that they’re better positioned to take advantage of it.

I think that they would be understandably upset if the finger was put on the scale against them. However, if a consumer or a customer found that prices were increasing dramatically due to a limited number of providers, such as what we see today in Ocean shipping, then perhaps some market intervention is required as things start to shift in any industry where if it’s a tariff or short of some kind. Businesses must evaluate, is it worth sticking through it?

Your experts belong here

Every story in MarketScale Energy starts with a company putting its field engineers, operations leads, and project developers on the record. Buyers are already reading this topic. The only question is whose experts they find.

Get your team featuredSee how it works15 minutes, straight to a calendar.

Follow Energy Insights

Get new expert content in your inbox.

Energy: are you visible to AI?

Before they reach out, Energy buyers ask AI engines which vendors to trust. See how AI describes your company today, and where competitors show up instead.

Free workspace

You just read one Energy expert. Your company is full of them.

This article was produced through MarketScale. The same platform turns your field engineers, operations leads, and project developers into the articles, video, and social content Energy buyers are searching for. Create a free workspace and see it with your own people. No credit card, no demo required.

NPS +73 · 1,000+ creators · 38+ countries

What you get, free

Your own MarketScale Studio workspace
One video edit a month, on us
AI writing, editing, and publishing tools
In-platform coaching to learn the system

More Energy Insights

US power sector CO2 emissions jumped 4% in 2025, just as SBTi opens its net-zero standard for comment

US power sector CO2 emissions jumped 4% in 2025, just as SBTi opens its net-zero standard for comment

The US power sector's CO2 emissions increased by 4% in 2025 due to factors like coal usage and rising data center demand. Concurrently, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has commenced its second public consultation on a new net-zero standard. This consultation aims to refine and establish guidelines for achieving comprehensive net-zero emissions targets.

  • 01US power sector CO2 emissions increased by 4% in 2025, driven by coal and data center demand.
  • 02The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has opened a second public consultation on its net-zero standard.
  • 03SBTi's consultation seeks to set guidelines for achieving comprehensive net-zero emissions goals.

Aug 6, 2026

P&G absorbs a $1 billion war-cost hit and signals a flat-to-3% EPS growth year ahead

P&G absorbs a $1 billion war-cost hit and signals a flat-to-3% EPS growth year ahead

Procter & Gamble anticipates a financial impact of $1 billion due to the conflict in Iran. The company projects that its fiscal year 2027 adjusted earnings per share will see growth ranging from flat to 3%. This guidance suggests earnings of approximately $7 at the midpoint.

  • 01Procter & Gamble expects a $1 billion cost impact from the Iran conflict.
  • 02The company projects fiscal 2027 adjusted EPS growth from flat to 3%.
  • 03Anticipated earnings per share for 2027 are approximately $7 at the midpoint.

Aug 6, 2026

Mastercard's Q2 revenue jumps 14% to $9.28 billion as payment network volumes climb

Mastercard's Q2 revenue jumps 14% to $9.28 billion as payment network volumes climb

Mastercard reported a 14% increase in Q2 revenue, reaching $9.28 billion, driven by rising payment network volumes. The company's profit for the quarter was $4.39 billion, exceeding analyst expectations.

  • 01Mastercard's Q2 revenue rose by 14% to $9.28 billion.
  • 02The company's quarterly profit was $4.39 billion, surpassing analyst forecasts.
  • 03Payment network growth contributed significantly to Mastercard's financial performance.

Aug 6, 2026

Explore More Energy Insights

Read more expert perspectives from across Energy.

Browse Energy Hub

For B2B teams

Your experts could be publishing here

Stories like this one run on content MarketScale captures from real practitioners. See how your team's expertise becomes coverage in Energy and beyond.

Book a 15-minute demo

Or call us. No forms required. We pick up. 214-945-2512