Dan Grossman: EDF Voices

Here’s a newly-minted cabinet secretary charged with managing 20 percent of the American landscape on behalf of taxpayers and 567 Native American tribes – presented with an opportunity to save his stakeholders millions without lifting a finger.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, inexplicably, is rejecting this broad public relations win to instead go to bat for the worst actors in the oil and gas industry who only focus on their own short-term bottom line.   

Zinke is trying with all his might to halt an Obama-era rule that will reduce wasteful leaking, venting and flaring of natural gas on federal and tribal lands.

On the lands in Secretary Zinke’s charge, oil and gas companies waste around $330 million worth of natural gas annually. That’s enough gas to meet the heating and cooking needs of 1.5 million American homes – or every home in Chicago.

Such waste on land administered by Interior’s Bureau of Land Management also results in the needless emission of methane, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants, all of which are threats to human health and the environment.

As this timeline shows, Zinke and his industry cronies have already struck out trying to reverse the methane waste rule. And yet, they refuse to go back to the dugout – despite what Congress and the courts have said. But first, some quick background.

January 2017: Court rejects methane rule challenge

Late last year, after final adoption of the anti-waste rule, oil and gas industry interests sued to stop it from taking effect. In January, a federal judge in normally industry-friendly Wyoming rejected their motion for an injunction – and for good reason.

The BLM is charged with protecting federal and tribal lands, and for ensuring appropriate return to taxpayers on such lands. Minimizing wasteful industry practices is a core obligation of the agency.

Strike one.

February 2017: Zinke votes “aye” to rescind

After the January court ruling, Congress stepped in to try get the job done at the behest of industry. Lawmakers attempted to rescind the waste prevention rule by invoking the Congressional Review Act.

Zinke, then still a Montana congressman, cast an “aye” vote – only to watch the Senate reject the roll-back in May. The Senate vote was another set-back for the industry’s campaign to block methane protections on BLM land.

Strike two.

By now, however, Zinke was Secretary of Interior and, together with his industry allies, still intent on reversion the waste prevention rule.

June 2017: Secretary Zinke suspends – loses in court

Less than four months into his new job with the Trump administration, Zinke directed his agency  to unilaterally suspend many of the most important protections of the methane waste rule.

This without providing any opportunity for public comment and without considering the additional wasted gas or harmful air pollution that would result from such a delay.   

A legal challenge of that attempted stay – led by the attorneys general of California and New Mexico and a broad coalition of environmental and conservation groups, including mine – was finally defeated in court in early October.

Strike three.

October 2017:  Undeterred, Zinke seeks to delay rule

Still swinging. Zinke is now proposing an effort to stall implementation of the most critical anti-waste protections until January of 2019.

Unlike his predecessor who insisted on an exhaustive stakeholder process before adopting the rule, with hearings in Washington and in the West, Zinke has offered only a 30-day comment period on this attempted rollback. But there’s still time to tell the administration that this is out of line with what Americans want.

This last-ditch maneuvering to halt protections against methane pollution, and which at this point nobody but the secretary and his industry allies support, risks the waste of even more tax dollars.

Since 2013, more than $1.8 billion worth of American taxpayer-owned natural gas has been wasted largely due to avoidable leaks, flaring and intentional releases of methane. 

It explains why more than 80 percent of Western voters, who live and work near public lands, support this rule, and why more than two-thirds of voters across the country want to keep it.

But Zinke, a Westerner himself, remains at bat for the worst of industry – no matter how voters feel or what makes good economic sense.

Trump wants to reduce waste and grow jobs. Good, these policies do just that.

Nobody raises an eyebrow when California takes steps to rein in air pollution – but what’s going on when conservative-leaning Rust Belt states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania are doing the same?

At a time when the Trump administration and Congress seek to scale back federal rules targeting methane emissions from energy production, a growing number of states that swung in favor of Trump in 2016 are heading in the opposite direction.

It reminds us that states that recognize good policy still have the power to act, regardless of who controls Washington. Ohio and Pennsylvania, now following in the footsteps of Colorado, Wyoming and California, are the latest examples of this.

Ohio: Pragmatic governor had a smart idea

States have different reasons for targeting methane leaks, even if they tend to draw the same conclusion at the end of the day: Methane mitigation is good for the environment and for companies on which tens of thousands of American jobs depend.

This was Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s pitch when he proposed common-sense steps the Buckeye State could take to rein in oil and gas pollution.

Kasich was able to avoid major opposition to the measure by pointing to environmental and political problems other states were experiencing as a result of their inaction, and by showing that it was in Ohio’s and its industry’s best interest to get ahead of the curve.

“We’re going to have to have some additional regulation to make sure that industry stays safe,” he told the Ohio Chamber of Commerce in 2014.

That year, the state required companies to reduce leaks at well sites. In February 2017, Ohio expanded these requirements to also cover compressor and transmission stations – the facilities that help push gas through the pipeline, and that account for about one-third of the industry’s total methane leakage.

The results of Ohio’s policies so far?

Companies, which must now check their equipment for gas leaks at new or modified equipment once a quarter, have complied and gone about their business. At the same time, new jobs are cropping up in a whole new industry focused on detecting and capping methane leaks.  

Pennsylvania: Public outcry prompted action

Across the state border in the Keystone State, public concern over hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has already been growing for several years due to insufficient oversight.

Environmental violations at drill sites have been well-documented by the state; Pennsylvanians have been shocked by images of oil spills, leaking tanks and dead vegetation.

Not surprisingly, Pennsylvania is next in line to tackle methane waste. In January 2016, Gov. Tom Wolf announced his intent to adopt the toughest methane pollution rules in the nation.

While welcomed by many, the governor’s approach to reducing methane emissions has run into resistance in the state legislature as of late. Some politicians have apparently been swayed by misleading rhetoric about the costs of reducing gas leaks, and threats that environmental protections “kill jobs.”

All these lawmakers need to do, of course, is to peek across the border to Ohio, or call states out West that can attest that methane policies won’t hurt operators’ bottom line. They even spawn new job growth.

In fact, Pennsylvania and Ohio already count more than 40 companies that specialize in emission reduction and that provide high-paying service and manufacturing jobs to thousands of rust belt residents.

Americans don’t like waste

It’s estimated that oil and gas companies lose some $2 billion a year in product. Such waste doesn’t sit well with hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet, especially when it only costs companies about a penny per unit of produced gas to reduce such pollution. 

The 2015 Aliso Canyon disaster grew public awareness of methane leaks. And lately, opposition has been growing out West against Trump’s move to abandon an Obama-era rule aimed at reducing such leaks from drill sites on federal lands.

It raises the question of how far Trump’s policies will reach before they run into resistance – even in states that delivered him the presidency.

Trump wants to cut waste. Good, these policies do.

Today, lawmakers are using the Congressional Review Act to dismantle common-sense energy policies that can save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars and prevent massive amounts of energy resources from being needlessly wasted.

The targeted policies from the Bureau of Land Management apply to oil and gas companies that operate on 245 million acres of federal and tribal lands. Since 2013, these operators have wasted more than $1.5 billion worth of natural gas that belongs to the American public, with millions in lost royalties as a result.

That comes to more than $1 million every day – hardly what President Trump had in mind when he promised to maximize our natural resources.

Trump also famously campaigned against the “rigged system.” But dismantling policies that prevent private companies from wasting American resources rigs the system in favor of industry and against taxpayers. 

Which begs the question, why would Congress take an action that affects our economy and flies in the face of the Trump administration’s explicit goals?

“We’re wasting energy and that is troubling”

Oil and gas operations on public lands cost taxpayers $600 million between 2005 and 2015, according to one report.

Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana, President Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of the Interior, has called this waste “troubling.” But even more more troubling is the fact that his Republican colleagues in Congress are moving to jettison the BLM natural gas waste rule that would directly benefit their constituents. 

Rolling back BLM’s standards will now cost taxpayers [PDF] an additional $800 million in lost royalties over the next decade –  money that would be welcome in many states across the West that today face budget shortfalls. 

Dismantling BLM’s policies run counter to the Trump administration’s own energy goals. According to the president’s energy plan, Trump plans to boost American energy production and to use the revenue to fund public infrastructure improvement projects.

BLM’s policies accomplish exactly this. It also explains why the policies have received bipartisan support from conservationists and fiscal conservatives, along with more than 80 percent of Westerners.

So who’s against these rules?

Follow the money. Last year, oil and gas companies reportedly spent $118 million lobbying against policies that protect the public from unintended consequences from energy development.

In fact, the polluter lobby filed a lawsuit against BLM within 30 minutes of the policies being finalized, arguing that regulations are unnecessary as the industry is naturally incentivized not to waste product. 

But the massive amount of gas currently being wasted tells a different story, not to mention the fact that the problem can easily be rectified given the affordable and proven technologies on the market today to stop this waste.

Some jurisdictions such as Colorado already require companies to address natural gas waste and operators there say these policies haven’t hurt their bottom line. They’ve also created new jobs: There are already 500 companies that develop, manufacture and sell methane control technologies in the U.S. today. 

Using the Congressional Review Act to rescind BLM’s energy policies runs in direct opposition to the very ideals that Republican leaders claim to support. It’s a blunt, misplaced effort that undermines American taxpayers, threatens our energy security and causes irreparable damage to the environment. 

These rules alone can save us $300 million a year

Source: Washington Business Journal

 

As a parent, I would not be pleased if my kids brought home F’s on their report cards.  Stern talks with my children, frantic phone calls and scheduled meetings with teachers and administrators would ensue.  Plans of action would be crafted.  It would be an urgent wake-up call.

This week, several counties in Colorado and Wyoming brought home poor grades on their clean air report cards.  The American Lung Association examined the levels of damaging ozone pollution in counties in these two western states and several of them are simply not making the grade.

High ozone levels are not new to Colorado.  Like many large metropolitan areas, Denver has struggled with ozone pollution (commonly known as smog) for many years. But historically, such problems have been limited to the summertime and to the Denver metropolitan area. Now unhealthy levels of ozone are becoming a common occurrence year-round and are emerging in rural parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

The culprit?  Air pollution from oil and gas development, which is just one of the environmental risks associated with a booming natural gas industry.

ALA’s annual State of the Air report gave failing air pollution grades last week for ozone pollution to Arapahoe and Larimer Counties in Colorado and Sublette County in Wyoming.  In addition, Boulder and Weld Counties, Colorado and Fremont County, Wyoming both received D’s.

A deeper look at the subpar performers in Colorado reveals a link between high oil and gas development and high ozone levels. Boulder, Larimer and Weld Counties comprise an oil and gas field called the greater Wattenberg area, a region that accounts for roughly 40 percent of the state’s oil and gas wells and represents two-thirds of all new drilling permits issued in the state. A study released earlier this year by Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences also indicated oil and natural gas operations in Weld County to be the dominant wintertime source of certain gasses that act as precursors for ozone.

Ozone pollution is created by an interaction between two different sorts of air pollutants, oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”).  Oil and gas development provides a significant source for both of these air contaminants. In fact, oil and gas development is the only major emission source for these pollutants in Fremont and Sublette Counties in Wyoming.  Moreover, regulators in Colorado have identified the oil and gas industry as the biggest source of VOC emissions in the state and compressor engines and drill rigs used at oil and gas facilities as the biggest source of oxides of nitrogen in the Front Range ozone nonattainment area.

Health studies have shown that exposure to high levels of ozone pollution leads to lung problems, difficulty breathing, increased susceptibility to infections and other respiratory ailments, such as asthma attacks, a leading cause of hospital visits especially among children, and even premature deaths.

Regulators in Wyoming and Colorado recognize that air pollution from the oil and gas sector is a problem. Wyoming has formed a task force to identify steps to further reduce ozone precursors from oil and gas activities in its Upper Green River Basin.  Colorado regulators have similarly instituted a series of stakeholder meetings to develop requirements to reduce ozone, as well as other pollutants, such as methane (a powerful greenhouse gas), associated with oil and gas activities.

Colorado and Wyoming are rightly recognized as national leaders when it comes to enforcing clean air measures for the oil and gas industry. Both states’ “green completion” requirements for technologies and techniques that limit air pollution during the completion process of oil and gas wells, as well as other requirements for leaky equipment, formed the basis for new national standards to reduce pollution from the oil and gas industry.  And both states’ oil and gas industries have experienced healthy growth since these state clean air measures were put in place, demonstrating that development can go hand in hand with rigorous clean air regulations.

However, the bad ALA report cards illustrate that more must be done. For example, operators must put in place state-of-the-art pollution control devices and practices. This includes requiring producers to search for and fix leaky oil and gas drilling and production equipment, eliminating venting, reducing the waste of natural gas by flaring and ensuring that aging, dirty equipment is subject to available, modern pollution controls.

EDF will remain engaged in the ongoing rulemaking processes in Colorado and Wyoming to help enact commonsense, cost-effective rules that reduce the release of harmful air contaminants in order to protect and improve the air for local residents and to reduce the impact of the oil and gas sector on climate change.

Ozone pollution from oil and gas activity can be reduced significantly with sensible regulations.  It is now up to regulators and policymakers in Colorado and Wyoming to buckle down, get their grades’ up and make cleaner air a reality.  

This post originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog. 

Blog Category for Navigation: Ecosystems