By Ben Ratner

Every physician would tell you that regular check-ups are important for your health, to catch problems before they become big issues, and to let you know that everything is in working order. Regular check-ups are also important for the oil and natural gas industry, whose leading actors benefit from periodic site inspections for natural gas leaks, which let product go to waste and pollute the air our families breathe.

Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt slammed the brakes on these regular check-ups for methane emissions (the main component of natural gas), when EPA announced its intention to freeze for two years safeguards that include a national standard for twice annual leak detection inspections at new well pads. And mere hours later, the Bureau of Land Management suspended waste prevention standards on federal and tribal lands. While these actions might initially be popular among some in the oil & gas community in Texas, the long-term repercussions will be severe.

With commodity prices recovering and a wave of development expected in the Permian Basin, the leak detection requirements were to take effect in time to support responsible development of new resources.

The administration attempts to justify abrupt halting of these basic standards as a necessary step to support the competitiveness of industry. However, the facts tell a very different story: compliance with leak detection requirements is cost effective, and an emerging industry of American small businesses stands at the ready to boost conservation, cut waste, and help industry comply.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) works to bring the right people to the table to forge innovative solutions that help people and nature prosper—we’ve proven that market-oriented solutions to environmental challenges not only drive bottom-line gains, but also spur innovation and job creation. Hearing trade association claims that methane standards are too onerous for industry—that small operators cannot afford to purchase pollution control equipment, for example—we wanted to understand what is actually happening on the ground. That is why we recently teamed with Datu Research to study the market solutions for companies needing to comply with the kind of leak detection requirements recently stymied on multiple fronts by the Trump administration.

Datu found that oil and gas companies do not need to purchase their own leak detection equipment. Instead, they can rely on one of 60 companies that provide methane leak detection and repair as a service in 45 states. Signing a contract with these firms eases the compliance burden for operators, because they can rely on third parties to provide trained staff and state of the art equipment like infrared cameras that bring invisible leaks into focus so they can be fixed.

Most third party leak detection firms are located within 100 miles of client sites, allowing for efficient service, and in many cases extra efficiency from “bundling” of multiple sites in a day to manage costs further.

And Texas boasts a Texas-sized leak detection industry, home to nearly two dozen leak detection and repair firms. For example, Dexter ATC, based in Beaumont, TX, serves 27 sites in Texas alone.

Not only do leak detection and repair service firms create cost effective solutions for industry clients, they create offshore-proof jobs working with technology. Dexter’s Nick James, now the Operations Director, explains that leak detection and repair provides young people who lack a college degree the opportunity to acquire skills and earn good entry-level wages. Nick’s story of upward mobility—he started as a field technician detecting leaks—is not unique, as the industry supports six job types, with salaries from $27,000 to the six figures.

Companies like Dexter are ready to help the oil and gas industry operate more cleanly and efficiently, and these small businesses stand to grow. Datu found that requiring methane controls—as the EPA and BLM standards do–creates jobs cutting methane emissions. In fact, companies have already experienced 5-30% business growth in states with methane regulations.

Rolling back methane safeguards isn’t just a step backwards for clean air, resource conservation, and an industry looking to demonstrate responsible operations as demand for clean energy grows—these rollbacks pull the rug out from an emerging industry that puts Americans to work. That’s not what the doctor ordered.

By David Lyon

The federal administration’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA are devastating. Nearly all climate-related programs are proposed to be cut or greatly reduced, including the popular ENERGY STAR program.

Yet two critical climate EPA programs have maintained partial funding in the current proposal – the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).  These programs provide critical reports each year outlining U.S. man-made greenhouse emissions across the country. These informative reports are vital to the energy sector and our regional climate initiatives and must be preserved by this and future federal administrations.

If we are not measuring and tracking our annual output of greenhouse gases, our ability to verifiably reduce our emissions becomes severely impaired. Our country – along with public and industry stakeholders across the work –needs access to this U.S. data each year in order to understand patterns and trends in greenhouse gas emissions.  Transparent reporting of GHG data can help hold emitters publicly accountable and facilitate emission reductions.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

The GHGI program was initiated more than 20 years ago and provides detailed, yet incomplete, accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for dozens of U.S. source categories caused by human activities. The report provides an assessment of the country’s GHG emissions history and can guide future reduction targets. The GHGI is also a source of valuable scientific data and can guide investment in emissions research and mitigation. The gases covered by the inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

The GHGI has been highly detailed and science-based, and the EPA historically has been committed to making continuous improvements to this report. Great progress has been made in the last few years in regards to updating the estimate of the oil and gas industry’s methane emissions, but additional work is needed to increase its accuracy.

The administration should provide the GHGI with an adequate budget to implement two to three major science-based updates each year, such as fully accounting for oil and gas super-emitters and including estimates of abandoned wells. The EPA should also be free to make updates to the report free of political interference whenever needed.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The GHGRP provides emission data from the largest industrial facilities in the country. Facilities measured under this program emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, supply consumers with fossil fuels, or inject carbon dioxide.  The GHGRP is a mandatory reporting program for U.S. facilities emitting GHGs ≥ 25,000 metric tons CO2e. Facilities have annually reported emissions and associated data since 2010.  In 2015, approximately 8,000 facilities reported 3 billion metric tons CO2e.

The GHGRP data derived from these reports is highly valuable for research into the quantification and mitigation of emissions.  The EPA also started recently integrating GHGRP data into the GHGI, which increases the accuracy of the inventory relying on the most recently available data.

GHGRP reports provide the public with verifiable and standardized data from the largest polluters. The proposed budget mentions potential revisions related to reporting of sensitive business information.  While improvements to the efficiency of the reporting program are welcome, EPA should not weaken the transparency of the program by classifying more data elements as confidential.

Insufficient Budgets Lead to Insufficient Emission Data

The proposed administration budget slashes all of the research funding and most of the implementation funds for the GHGRP. Many science-based updates need to be made to the report, including the use of more direct measurements. The administration should provide the GHGRP with an adequate budget to continuously research and implement updates to improve the accuracy of reported data.

In order for our cities, states and industrial energy facilities to measure and reduce their greenhouse emissions, they must have access to these reports. The value and accuracy of these reports will decrease significantly if they are not funded appropriately. Without sufficient budgets, the EPA will also lose its ability to continuously improve the data quality and reporting efficiency of the reports.  Trump might have pulled the U.S. federal government out of the Paris agreement last week, but 187 U.S. city mayors have already pledged to adopt and commit to the goals outlined in the agreement.

Appropriate budgets are required for these reports, though objectivity and access are paramount, as well. Updates to these reports should be driven by science – not business interests.  And the EPA should assure the public that this data remains publically available.

Without annual U.S. greenhouse gas emission data derived from these reports, polluters and stakeholders will not have the information required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, we will all be flying blind, and now is not the time to lack current climate data.

Image source: Public Domain Pictures

By Jon Goldstein

In 2014, NASA scientists published their discovery of a methane “hot spot” hovering over New Mexico’s San Juan Basin. The 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is the largest area of elevated methane concentration ever measured in the U.S., and is so big scientists can spot it from space.

While some have tried to debate the cause of the hot spot, it is more than mere coincidence that the San Juan Basin is one of the most productive natural gas fields in North America, and that oil and gas development is the leading industrial cause of methane emissions nationally.

Manmade methane emissions  are an urgent concern for scientists and policy makers since they are responsible for about a quarter of current global warming, which is why Scientists from NASA and NOAA embarked on a series of studies to try to pinpoint the source of New Mexico’s methane cloud.

In 2016 NASA researchers concluded that many of the region’s highest-emitting sources were associated with the region’s oil and gas production and distribution infrastructure.  Now yet another study confirms this tie and should put the hot spot debate to rest.

For the latest hot spot study, this one published in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers used aircraft to measure methane concentrations in the atmosphere over the four corners region over a five day period. The airborne mass balance approach used in the study (which measures methane concentration and wind speed in order to calculate regional emissions) found that high methane emissions from 2003 – 2009 have persisted to 2015. Although the San Juan includes other methane sources such as coal mines and geologic seepage, these sources are not large enough to explain the bulk of emissions.

The fact that this study finds methane emissions in the San Juan Basin have remained steady should send a clear message to those in New Mexico tasked with protecting New Mexico’s natural resources:  the state’s oil and gas industry needs more oversight.

Putting the Hot Spot debate to rest

At a Senate hearing earlier this year, Ken McQueen, Secretary of New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, told state officials that New Mexico’s methane cloud was likely caused by naturally occurring sources, ignoring studies (like this one) that clearly show oil and gas development to be the largest source of methane. According to the latest Environmental Science and Technology study, “given the magnitude from aircraft and ground-based sampling, and the lack of any large increasing trend in ground-based sampling, geologic seepage cannot explain the persistent emissions in the basin over time.”

Secretary McQueen should know better, especially given that he just retired a year ago as an executive with WPX Energy, one of the San Juan Basin’s leading natural gas producers.

Now is not the time for New Mexico to ignore the science on methane. Just this week, the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency announced they would put a hold on implementing national standards that aim to reduce oil and gas methane emissions. With national policies being rolled back, it will be up to New Mexico officials to controls the state’s methane problem.

Industry’s methane emissions not only impact the climate, they also undermine our energy security.  Natural gas primarily is methane – meaning the more companies leak into New Mexico’s air, the less energy there is to deliver to New Mexico homes and communities.

Willfully disregarding the science of oil and gas methane pollution does an unfortunate disservice to New Mexico communities as well. When facilities emit methane, they also emit other harmful pollutants that can increase smog and trigger asthma attacks. By ignoring the fact that oil and gas development is one of the region’s largest polluters, New Mexico officials are essentially ignoring the health of the communities surrounded by oil and gas development.

Fortunately reducing methane and other harmful emissions from the industry is extremely cost effective. Studies have found that companies can reduce nearly half of their emissions by investing about a penny on every thousand cubic feet of gas produced.

With the future of our national clean air protections uncertain, and with pollution controls being as affordable as they are, New Mexico leaders should take concrete steps to reign in oil and gas pollution and make a meaningful dent in the methane cloud.

Image source: NASA

By Mark Brownstein

Five years ago, EDF initiated a series of 16 peer-reviewed scientific studies involving over 100 research and industry experts in order to better quantify the methane emissions coming from the U.S. oil and gas industry and to better understand where and how to focus efforts to reduce them. Since then, over 30 peer-reviewed papers have been published across a number of scientific journals, with the data indicating that emissions from the industry are generally higher than official U.S. estimates.

However, quantifying methane wasn’t our only goal. We also sought to catalyze a community of researchers — both inside and outside academia — to continue this work, because there is still much more we can learn about how to effectively reduce this powerful climate pollutant.  So I was pleased to see the publication of a new independent study that evaluates methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure in the Fayetteville Shale region of Arkansas.

Researchers estimated regional emissions based on data collected during two flights in October 2015, and teamed up with the major operators in the area to help interpret the results. This proactive industry involvement is valuable for increasing our understanding about what factors may cause excessive emissions.

For this study, companies provided very detailed information about a routine operation known as manual liquids unloading – the process of unclogging a well of liquids that inhibit gas production. Specifically, industry provided the research team with the start and end times of 107 manual liquids unloading events taking place during the two midday flight windows. Thanks to these insights, researchers estimate that 30-50% of the emissions measured during the regional flights were due to these episodic events. The authors of this study report that emissions from manual liquids unloadings in the Fayetteville Shale are not equally spread across all hours of the day; instead they occur preferentially during working hours. Consequently, emissions from these episodic events measured around midday may be 3-5 times higher than the daily average.

Putting the data to use

Traditionally top-down studies like this one — which use aircraft to capture methane data in the atmosphere—find higher methane levels than studies that rely on ground-based measurements.  My science colleagues also tell me that the aircraft-based methods used in this paper reduce uncertainty between top-down and bottom up studies by carefully accounting for the background methane entering the study area which varied from East to West (although they were unsure about the effect of excluding 13 of 15 flights – deemed unsuitable for analysis – on the study’s conclusions).

These results can be expected to vary from basin-to-basin. Planned, episodic events may account for a significant portion of emissions in the Fayetteville, but research in other basins finds that abnormal, unintended events are the defining attribute of super-emitting sites – random, unpredictable sites responsible for a disproportionate amount of methane emissions.  We suspect both play a role in explaining the difference in emissions data from “top down” and “bottom up” studies reported in other basins.

The good news is unloading liquids is a common, planned event at a certain time of day – meaning companies can target interventions that are timely, efficient, and effective at reducing emissions. Now that the study has surfaced a principal cause of methane emissions in this region, a key next step is to implement suitable emission reduction strategies through company practice and federal and state regulation.

Image source: Wikimedia

By Peter Zalzal

Today, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt officially suspended vital air pollution safeguards that will reduce harmful methane, smog-forming volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants like benzene from new and modified sources in the oil and natural gas sector – a move that puts the health and safety of Americans across the country at risk.

EDF, together with a coalition of environmental groups, filed a legal challenge and an emergency motion as soon as the suspension was published.

Our brief asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to immediately block Administrator Pruitt’s dangerous action from taking effect.

Suspending the standards threatens the health and welfare of Americans who live in close proximity to oil and gas development by allowing thousands of tons of these harmful air pollutants to be emitted into the atmosphere.

Each day this unlawful suspension is in place, the harm is compounded – more new wells are drilled, and other wells subject to the standards are allowed to continue emitting harmful pollution which cannot later be removed from the air.

Administrator Pruitt didn’t bother to identify these impacts before suspending these vital safeguards, nor did he take public input on this action.

Here’s more information on the suspension, and why we felt it was so important to take emergency legal action:

Administrator Pruitt’s actions show an intent to permanently strip away vital health protections

Last year – after years of deliberation and extensive public input – EPA issued long-overdue nationwide standards that require new and modified oil and gas facilities to curb emissions of methane and other harmful pollutants using proven, cost-effective best practices and technologies.

On April 18th, Administrator Pruitt sent a letter to several large oil and gas trade associations notifying them that he would reconsider parts of those standards.

In particular, Administrator Pruitt targeted the leak detection and repair provisions of the rule —requirements that operators inspect for gas leaks at their sites using readily-available technologies like infrared cameras, and then repair any leaks in a timely manner.

These protections against leaks are the cornerstone of EPA’s standards, accounting for up to 45 percent of their entire projected reductions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds, more than 50 percent of their reductions of methane pollution, and approximately 90 percent of their reductions of toxic air pollution.

Administrator Pruitt also alerted the oil and gas trade associations that he would suspend the leak detection and repair standards for 90 days, purportedly while EPA was looking at these provisions.

Then, just a few days before June 3, 2017 — the date by which operators would have had to complete their first inspection — Administrator Pruitt announced that he would issue today’s notice suspending the leak detection and repair standards in their entirety.

That notice was short on details, but did include two important pieces of information that reveal Pruitt’s true intent:

First, it states that EPA will “look broadly at the entire 2016 Rule.”

Second, it invokes the recent executive order which, among other things, directed EPA to “suspend, revise, or rescind” these 2016 standards.

Couple that with the fact that EPA has simultaneously sent to the Office and Management and Budget a proposal to extend, for an indeterminate period, the 90-day stay, and it’s pretty clear what Pruitt’s plans are – to permanently strip away standards designed to protect millions of Americans from harmful oil and gas pollution.

Thousands of polluters avoid taking common sense actions to find and fix leaks

Entirely absent from Administrator Pruitt’s notice today was any attempt to analyze or understand the impacts his suspension of these protections would have on the tens of thousands of Americans who stood to benefit from their implementation.

To support our request to the D.C. Circuit [PDF] to block Administrator Pruitt’s suspension, we did look at the impacts Americans would face – and they are serious.

Analyzing data from a widely-used database of oil and gas wells, EDF scientist Dr. David Lyon determined that more than 18,000 wells across the nation – all of them built or modified since September 2015 – will no longer be required to find and fix leaks during the current suspension.

Of these, more than 11,000 are located in states without any leak detection and repair standards of their own — meaning that, because of Administrator Pruitt’s action, these sources would entirely avoid leak inspection requirements and be free to continue emitting pollution unabated.

If the suspension stands, Dr. Lyon estimates that during the next three months these sources will emit up to an additional 17,000 tons of methane, 4,700 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds, and 181 tons of hazardous air pollutants.

Here’s a look at all wells covered by the leak detection standards, and at those wells in states without any state-level leak detection program:

EDF has mapped wells that have been drilled or completed since September of 2015 and so would be covered by these vital clean air standards – see the searchable, interactive database here to find the wells in your community.

Dr. Lyon’s analysis likely understates the true impact of Administrator Pruitt’s suspension.

For example, Wyoming’s standards only apply in the Upper Green River Basin, and not state-wide. In addition, some states excluded by the analysis have strong state-level leak detection programs, but others – including Utah and Pennsylvania – are substantially weaker than EPA’s. In those areas, the EPA standards would have had meaningful additional benefits, if allowed to take effect.

Also, though based on the most recently available data, most states lack drilling and completion information from the last several months. And right now Baker Hughes reports that there are more than 900 active drill rigs across the country drilling new wells – none of which would be subject to EPA’s leak detection and repair requirements while Administrator Pruitt’s suspension is in effect.

These sources emit harmful air pollution

Ultimately, EPA’s suspension will result in communities across the country facing additional harmful pollution from the oil and gas sector.

EDF Senior Health Scientist Dr. Elena Craft provided information on the impacts of smog-forming and hazardous air pollution.

Ground-level ozone, more commonly known as smog, forms when volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides mix in the presence of sunlight. The result is a harmful air pollutant that can have acute respiratory effects and serious cardiovascular impacts. The summer months are often when smog is at its worst.

Dr. Craft found that more than 1,800 wells that will now be allowed to continue emitting smog-forming pollution are located in areas of the country that violate the health-based 2008 smog standards.

During  the 2016 smog season, counties with wells that would be required to detect and repair their leaks but for Administrator Pruitt’s suspension had 7,832 moderate days (yellow flag warning), 549 days deemed unhealthy for sensitive groups (orange flag warning), 94 unhealthy days (red flag warning), and six very unhealthy and hazardous days (purple flag warning).

Administrator Pruitt’s suspension, if it’s allowed to stand, lets these and other sources continue emitting smog-forming pollution unabated during – at minimum – the months of June, July, and August. Those are the very months when smog is at its worst and communities are most susceptible to its harmful health effect.

EDF climate scientist Dr. Ilissa Ocko provided information about the harmful effects of additional climate-destabilizing methane emissions from these sources.

Methane is a powerful near-term climate forcer and, through its formation of tropospheric ozone, also contributes to ground-level ozone pollution.

During the time these additional methane emissions remain in the atmosphere, they will have the same 20-year climate impact as more than 300,000 cars driving for one year, or more than 1.5 billion pounds of coal burned.

Once in the atmosphere, there is no available mechanism to remove this climate pollution or reverse its disruptive effects.

Administrator Pruitt’s notice suspending the leak detection and repair requirements doesn’t take any of these impacts into account.

Leak detection standards are common sense and highly cost-effective

In our legal filing today [PDF], we also document the reasonable and highly cost-effective nature of the leak detection standards to underscore the feasibility of allowing the standards to take effect as planned.

The 2016 standards gave operators a year to plan for and complete their initial inspection —time that was provided at the express request of many oil and gas operators.

Many companies are already effectively complying with similar standards in states like Colorado, Wyoming, and California.

Ultimately, as set forth in an analysis by EDF economists Jonathan Camuzeaux and Dr. Kristina Mohlin, the costs of doing common sense leak detection and repair are small. For instance, there are companies that provide these services for $250 per well site. This is a tiny fraction of the average annual revenue produced by the wells covered by Administrator Pruitt’s suspension, which our economists estimate to be approximately $3 million. It’s also negligible when compared to the substantial investment that operators make to drill a new well, which ranges from $4 to $8 million.

There is simply no reason to suspend or rescind leak detection and repair standards on the basis of cost concerns.

The legal basis for EPA’s suspension is unsound

The Clean Air Act provision that Administrator Pruitt relied on to suspend the standards enables EPA to reconsider aspects of rules when parties have not had an opportunity to comment on an issue during rulemaking. That may happen because new data becomes available later, or because an issue is first presented in a final rule.

Only when EPA identifies an issue that meets these criteria does it have the authority to temporarily suspend requirements while it undertakes a reconsideration.

But, as even the American Petroleum Institute recognized in filings with EPA, neither of the issues which EPA has identified for reconsideration meet this legal standard.

In fact, both issues were raised in the proposed rule and extensively addressed in comments to EPA by industry and other parties before the rule was finalized.

Administrator Pruitt’s suspension appears to be clearly pretextual – using flimsy bases for reconsideration as an excuse for wholesale rollbacks of climate and health protections.

This unprecedented and unlawful action by Administrator Pruitt will have clear and immediate public health impacts on communities all over the country that are near oil and gas development – impacts that the Administrator didn’t bother to identify, much less consider.

The suspension of these standards represents another dangerous and unlawful handout from Administrator Pruitt to the oil and gas industry, to the detriment of millions of American with a right to clean, healthy air, and a safer climate.

 

By Amanda Johnson

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently approved a settlement requiring Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to address environmental, as well as safety, factors when fixing natural gas leaks.

This comes on the heels of a similar settlement issued by the New York Public Service Commission in December. Together these decisions are ringing in a trend in which the environmental impacts of methane leaking from pipelines are being recognized.

Methane – the main component of natural gas — is responsible for about a quarter of current global warming, and awareness about the magnitude of methane that leaks from local pipelines has been mounting.

Earlier this year CPUC reported that in 2015, California pipelines leaked away 6.6 billion cubic feet of methane. Based on an average wholesale market price of gas, these losses mean ratepayers are paying approximately $18 million every year for gas that is never delivered. That’s more than the amount of gas released by the Aliso Canyon storage facility leak and over twice the amount emitted by all of the state’s oil and gas wells.

Fortunately, advancements in methane detection technology have made finding and fixing gas leaks more affordable than ever. This makes implementation a win-win for safety and integrity, and helps California meet its climate goals.

A mandate for modern tech, more inspections, and increased transparency

The settlement calls for PG&E is to continue to modernize its leak detection capabilities with affordable technologies that can find 80% more leaks in 40% of the time than with previous methods.

These technologies enable companies not only to find leaks, but recent literature suggests they can also estimate leak size. And that makes a big difference when it comes to prioritizing pipeline repair and replacement projects.

Utilities are required by law to fix leaks that pose a safety risk, but non-hazardous leaks – known as grade three leaks — may be allowed to persist often for months of years. In California, utilities including PG&E and Southern California Gas Company have racked up tens of thousands of grade three leaks on the books that they have in recent years begun to repair. These leaks may not pose an immediate safety risk, but they are detrimental to the climate.

That’s why the decision is so important. As part of the settlement, PG&E proposed to expand its use of these technologies across its entire distribution system, and agreed to repair grade three leaks and reduce the backlog of leaks they have already found. PG&E will also increase its leak survey frequency by 20% — from every five years to every four. More frequent surveys of pipeline systems will allow PG&E to find and fix leaks faster. This is particularly impactful when it comes to finding “super emitters” – the random, unpredictable leaks that are responsible for a significant portion of lost gas. Frequent detection is paramount to reducing emissions from these sources since utilities cannot predict where large leaks will occur.

Setting a New Standard

The CPUC decision will increase transparency and take leak data that was once held secret – and give it directly to the public in an easy, accessible way.

Under this new scenario, PG&E agreed to publicly display known leaks in a map form that is accessible through its website – not unlike the maps of gas leaks that EDF and Google pioneered in 2014.

This sets a new standard for transparency with utility companies, showing that it’s possible to provide leak information in a digestible format to the public, without compromising security. The utility is among the leading local distribution companies working to ensure the responsible delivery of natural gas.

Unfortunately, forward-thinking leak detection programs that increase transparency and prioritize the environment aren’t yet the standard across the board.

The CPUC’s decision is part of a general rate case between the Commission and utility. The Commission reviews rate cases every three years to determine if proposed increases are just and reasonable. In this case, the Commission determined that the environmental requirements are reasonable since they are affordable, they improve system integrity, and align with the state’s environmental policies like SB 1383 and SB 1371, which require a reduction of methane emissions and gas leaks.

PG&E is clearly ahead of the pack when it comes to reducing gas leaks, but there’s no reason other utilities shouldn’t be required to modernize their systems in order to protect public health and the environment.

Gas leaks aren’t unique to California. Our mapping data reveal leaks are a persistent problem across the country. Fortunately leak detection technologies are rapidly improving, and if utilities across the country are required to adopt them we could see improved system integrity, increased transparency and more climate protections a lot faster.

By Drew Nelson

In a sign of growing recognition of the global methane opportunity, the Government of Canada today proposed new regulations that aim to curb methane emissions across the Canadian oil and gas industry. This marks the first regulatory package to be introduced by the Trudeau administration for Canada to meet its overall climate goals. Now that the proposal is out, the draft federal methane rules will be open for public comment before they are finalized later this year. The new rules, if passed, will reduce waste, save money, create jobs, pollute less, and have Canada keep pace with jurisdictions across the globe that are addressing methane.

Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide for the first 20 years it’s in the atmosphere. A common byproduct of oil production, methane is also used widely in the form of natural gas. This means that there is an incentive for oil and gas companies to control these emissions and stop needless energy waste.

During the lead up to the release of the Canadian methane rules, however, the inverse proved true. The Canadian oil and gas lobby worked to weaken and delay implementation of the proposed regulations. Because of concessions that have already been made to appease industry, Canada now has ground to make up to retain its ability to deliver on its climate goals.

Here are four opportunities for Canada to do just that:

1. Reset the Timeline

The most significant watering down of the regulations was the delayed implementation timetable by as much as three years. These delays will allow an estimated 55 million tons of additional greenhouse gas emissions. Trudeau needs to reset the timetable so the regulations begin in 2019 (not 2020) and full implementation occurs by 2022 (not 2023).

1. Require Quarterly Leak Inspections

Leaks are one of the largest sources of methane emissions in Canada. A recent study from the David Suzuki Foundation found significantly more emissions were escaping from Canadian oil and gas operations, suggesting that there are actually more leaks than what is being reported. However, operators are not currently required to look for, let alone fix these leaks at most oil and gas facilities. This doesn’t pass the common sense test. After all, how can industry reduce these leaks if they don’t even have to look for them?

Methane is invisible and odorless, and many leaks are intermittent. So, if you’re not looking for leaks, you won’t find them. The scientific literature is clear that with more frequent monitoring, the more likely you are to catch and fix leaks. This is a central reason why quarterly leak detection and repair is required in some capacity by both federal and state regulations across the U.S.  Canada’s federal proposal calls for inspections only three times a year, but this should be improved by following best practices that have been proven in other jurisdictions.

1. Tighten the “Potential to Emit” Threshold

“Potential-to-emit” (PTE) is a measurement of how much methane a facility could, in theory, emit. A recent study by Environmental Defence shows that oil facilities have higher methane emissions than gas facilities. This is problematic because many of these high-emitting oil facilities fall below the PTE threshold in the draft regulation. This is a serious gap; you don’t let a driver with a history of speeding have a higher speed limit, so why would you let the leakiest sites avoid having to reduce their emissions? As currently proposed, the regulations would apply to facilities with a PTE greater than 60,000 cubic meters per year, but lowering this threshold and requiring systematic would ensure that the leakiest sites are included.

1. Demand Real Equivalency

Many provinces are expected to develop their own oil and gas methane regulations and petition the federal government to drop federal requirements in exchange for the provincial requirements.  They will maintain that these provincial regulations will achieve equivalent reductions to the federal proposal. Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna needs to ensure that what the provinces do are in fact equivalent in terms of reductions, and not just politically expedient. If they let provinces get by with weaker regulations than the federal proposal, then the federal government is explicitly allowing provinces to stymie Canada’s efforts to reach its climate goals.

Reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry reduces waste, creates jobs, pollutes less, and ensures Canada keeps pace with the rest of the world. Additionally, these reductions are one of the most effective and affordable ways for Canada to deliver on its climate commitments. For these promising regulations to make a meaningful impact, Canada’s leaders will have to resist the oil and gas lobby, and strengthen the rules before they’re adopted. EDF looks forward to working with the government and other concerned stakeholders to ensure this happens.

By Andrew Williams

The state senate held a hearing yesterday to discuss the impacts of natural gas development in the state, and yet not one environmental expert was on tap to speak. Consequently, senate leaders don’t have the full picture.

Here’s what state legislators need to know.

Industry-reported data made available this week by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection indicate that in  2015, emissions of methane – essentially natural gas – were up approximately 28% although production grew by only 12%.

The amount of methane waste is even higher than what was found via a preliminary analysis of the data earlier this month. The simple truth is that while some companies are working to do the right thing and reduce emissions, the bulk of the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania has a significant methane pollution problem.

Methane is the same product that these companies are aiming to sell. That means there is usable energy, and real dollars, literally going up into thin air. With emissions increasing nearly 30% without a congruent rise in production, it’s clear the industry isn’t doing an adequate job of controlling emissions and conserving Pennsylvania’s natural resources.

This is not only a problem for industry’s bottom line, it’s a problem that impacts millions of Pennsylvanians.

More than 1.5 million Pennsylvanians live within half a mile of an oil or gas facility, and methane isn’t the only emission that’s concerning. These facilities also emit other harmful pollutants that can trigger asthma attacks, increase smog, and exacerbate health problems.

The good news is that Pennsylvanians don’t have to choose between their environment and their economy. With the right policies in place, both can thrive. But that’s only possible if the state moves forward to address industry’s methane emissions.

Fortunately, technologies that can reduce nearly half of these emissions are some of the most affordable pollution controls in the energy industry. And many of the service and manufacturing companies that develop these technologies are headquartered in Pennsylvania, meaning there’s a huge opportunity for companies to affordably reduce their pollution as they grow good-paying jobs.

With emissions on a rapid rise, it’s clear that the state should step in and require pollution controls to be implemented statewide.

In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf proposed a blueprint to reduce industry’s emissions. A year and a half later, there has been little action.

That’s due in no small part to a bill championed by many of the same senators in today’s hearing that aims to prevent Pennsylvania from taking any action on methane that goes beyond federal efforts. That’s hugely problematic, and here’s why.

In April, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a 90-day stay on existing protections that would have cut methane pollution from new oil and gas facilities, and there is a possibility that the agency will rescind these protections altogether. This means that if Pennsylvania defers to the federal government for protections, well, they won’t be there. Tying Pennsylvania policies to whatever is happening in D.C. hardly serves the interest of Pennsylvania citizens and communities – instead, it’s a bouquet to industry.

Other major energy producing states, including: Colorado, Wyoming and Ohio, have been successful at crafting policies that require companies to use affordable and readily available technology to reduce emissions. And industry growth hasn’t been impacted – seven out of 10 gas companies surveyed in Colorado confirm that.

Since promising to reduce methane emissions, Pennsylvania has green-lighted nearly 2000 new drilling projects, yet zero new protections have been implemented.

With emissions increasing at an alarming rate, that has to change. We have to have a better balance. Pennsylvania’s elected leaders must be willing to put measures in place that can support Pennsylvania’s economy while protecting the health of our citizens and communities. The record clearly shows that both are possible.

By Mark Brownstein

New York is now the latest in a growing number of states cracking down on methane – the powerful greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of global warming.

The effort comes on the heels of a successful senate vote to uphold methane limits for oil and gas companies operating on our nation’s public and tribal lands, and sends yet another strong message to the oil and gas industry that Americans want and expect commonsense standards that  protect our health and natural resources.

Governor Cuomo’s new plan takes a comprehensive approach to tackling methane from the state’s biggest emission sources: landfills, agriculture, and the oil and gas industry. Collectively, the twenty-five reduction strategies outlined will allow New York to significantly curb methane pollution and allow the state to deliver on its 2030 climate target.

One of the biggest opportunities for methane reductions is in the oil and gas sector, where companies can eliminate nearly half of current emissions at minimal cost.

This is a strong move by Governor Cuomo at the exact right time.

The Trump administration has initiated a series of efforts in recent months to dismantle our nation’s clean air safeguards, including those that address oil and gas methane emissions.

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a stay on protections that would have reduced methane from new oil and gas facilities. And before that the agency announced it would no longer collect data about emissions from existing facilities.

But Trump’s home state is signaling a refusal to be deterred.

Cuomo’s plan will reinstate EPA standards for New York’s oil and gas facilities and calls for additional measures to reduce systematic methane leaks from pipelines, storage facilities and old, abandoned wells.

As one of the nation’s top five consumers of gas, New York has a special responsibility to ensure it is transported and distributed responsibly. By implementing measures to reducing emissions from natural gas gathering lines, transmission facilities and gas utility pipelines, New York is stepping up to the task.

Reducing methane from the oil and gas sector – whether it’s the well head or city pipelines – is one of the most cost-effective ways to take on one of the worst climate offenders and shore up our nation’s energy security.  Standards that require oil and gas companies to take methane out of the atmosphere and deliver more energy to our communities are the exact kind of protections that the majority of American’s support.  Continued state leadership – like this latest effort in New York – is critical to assuring Americans across the country that those safeguards will be in place.

By Ben Ratner

 This post originally appeared on Forbes. 

Last week, the oil and gas lobby suffered a major and unexpected loss, when the Republican controlled Congress refused to eliminate the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) natural gas waste rule. While API has since requested a two-year stay in compliance, they should instead pause, learn the lessons presented by the CRA, and move forward according to the wishes of the American public.

Here are three lessons industry should learn.

1. They misread the mood of the American public

In the early days of the Trump Administration, its anti-climate, anti-environment agenda came into sharp focus. This looked like a golden opportunity to roll back environmental safeguards, including the BLM protections, which minimize the unnecessary flaring, venting, and leaking of natural gas on federal and tribal lands. With President Trump still in the early days of his victory, and single party control of both Houses of Congress, some saw a political opening, or even a voter mandate to weaken environmental protections.

But what they saw was a mirage: Absolutely no one voted for more pollution.

The oil and gas industry misread the mood of the American public when it comes to public health, environment, and waste of our nation's valuable energy resources.

American voters from all over the country expressed their deep opposition to this rollback. National polling showed over 70% of voters wanted to keep the BLM rule. From ranchers to institutional investors, and tribal leaders to a broad swath of environmental and health activists, Americans stood up and spoke out.

Industry and Congress expected to win easily, but they didn’t have their finger on the pulse of a country whose citizens refuse to choose between energy they can reasonably afford and air they can safely breathe; economic opportunity they can believe in, and a climate that will be hospitable in the years to come.

2. They need to think about rules as investments

Industry tends to either view rules as a cost or as an investment. Unfortunately, those that saw the BLM rule as a cost had the loudest voices within industry, and that paved the way for overreach.

It’s time for industry to listen to its leaders who fall in the second camp. Yes, rules are not costless. Yes, companies will need to expend modest resources on implementing best practices, reporting, and other compliance activities.

But those are investments. Investments in responsible operations. Investments in the communities where they work. Investment in building trust with civil society, regulators, and long-term investors getting increasingly nervous about the hissing leak methane punctures in the value proposition of natural gas in a lower carbon future.

The irony is that the biggest cost to industry’s standing and license to operate – not to mention efficiency in conserving natural resources – would come in not making those investments.

As industry lobbies EPA to review its own methane rule, they should take stock of lessons learned from the BLM experience.

3. There is a plus side.

It’s also time to see what opportunities the BLM rule offers.

First, the BLM rule takes aim at routine flaring – which is not just an eyesore, but represents a loss of natural gas and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Operators should now make the investments and operational changes needed to end this wasteful practice.

Second, the BLM rule requires semi-annual leak detection and repair practices at well pads, and quarterly inspections at compressor stations. As these requirements (and similar ones from EPA and in several states) remain in force, industry has every incentive to support innovation in technologies and practices to detect leaks even more quickly and efficiently than ever before.

A growing industry is ready to step up to this challenge: Start-ups like Quanta3, made-in-America businesses like Sensit, and even large firms like IBM are here to learn about operator needs, to demonstrate their technologies and approaches, and to build a factual record that can support regulatory approval as an alternative. These win-win opportunities are good for the environment and for business, but they won’t be seized without industry leadership.

The BLM and EPA rules are both opportunities for industry, not just costs. Industry should take note, and move forward heeding the wishes of the majority of Americans.

Image source: Tim Evanson, Flickr

By Andrew Williams

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the same company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, just spilled millions of gallons of drilling sludge into an Ohio wetland – but don’t worry, they say everything is “safe.”

Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency called the company’s response “dismissive,” and “exceptionally disappointing,” and he’s right.

Fortunately, federal and state regulators have stepped up to hold ETP accountable.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered ETP to halt plans to continue with other pipeline drilling projects in the area and to double the number of environmental inspectors on its payroll.  And the Ohio EPA fined ETP $400,000 dollars for the damage caused by this spill, damage that OEPA says could be deadly and last for decades.

Still, ETP claims that they “do not believe that there will be any long-term impact to the environment.”  How do they figure that? It is clear that without regulators stepping in to manage the literal muck, the company would not have done the right thing.

Companies routinely argue that spilling is never their objective and thus regulations to prevent spills from happening are unnecessary. This is flawed logic. The objective of a driver speeding down the highway isn’t to get into an accident, it’s to get where they’re going faster. But accidents happen—on the highway and in the oilfield – and it’s exactly why we have traffic laws and environmental standards.  Because many people, and companies, won’t follow the rules unless someone makes them.

This should be a wakeup call about the real risks associated with oil and gas operations. These risks cannot be reduced to zero, but regulation is the only assurance that the American public has that they are protected when something goes wrong.

Of course, not all drivers run red lights, and not all companies are as reckless and destructive as what we see in this instance. Many are mindful of the environmental risks of constructing and operating well sites and pipelines.  Regulations that require more rigorous oversight and environmental enforcement reward the companies that are already doing the right thing, and they hold the bad actors accountable for their mess.

The way ETP handled the situation in Ohio is regretful and it’s a clear indicator for why we cannot allow oil and gas companies to operate with flagrant disregard for our health and our environment.   Strong state and federal regulations and vigilant enforcement of such regulations are our best assurance that disasters like this don’t happen again.

Image source: Ohio EPA

By Adam Peltz

Today, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Ground Water Protection Council published a new report entitled “Underground Gas Storage Regulatory Considerations: A Guide for State and Federal Regulatory Agencies.” Like the title says, the report helps regulators make decisions that will ultimately make gas storage facilities across the country safer and more secure.

Gas storage reached many Americans’ attention in the aftermath of the major leak at the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, which forced thousands of families to evacuate their homes after a massive leak caused more than 100,000 tons of methane to escape into the air.

It came to light that the various protections for gas storage facilities were, in many cases, skimpy and outdated. With more than 400 gas storage facilities across the country, this not only threatens our health and environment but also our energy supply. More than a third of our nation’s electricity comes from natural gas and the majority of American households depend on it for cooking and hot water. If our storage facilities aren’t up to snuff, we risk disrupting that energy supply – exactly what occurred in Aliso Canyon.

In order to help states and other jurisdictions — like the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration — make smart decisions about updating their programs, the two state oil and gas regulatory associations teamed up to write this guide, and recruited dozens of experts from across government, industry, academia, and the non-profit world (including EDF) to help. The guide is comprehensive, covering essential topics like well construction and conversion, ongoing integrity testing, and leak detection.

This guide (in addition to recommendations from the Department of Energy) is an invaluable resources for states and other agencies looking to upgrade their gas storage rules – which, in the spirit of a process of continuous improvement, should ultimately be all of them.

Incidents like Aliso Canyon have happened all too frequently in recent decades, and industry self-regulation just is not cutting it anymore. Using this guide, states can design and refine programs to considerably reduce risks of leaks and other incidents and help keep gas storage working safely and reliably for all Americans.

By Mark Brownstein

A global group of 30 leading institutional investors coordinated by the PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) has announced a new initiative that will encourage oil and gas companies, including gas utilities, around the world to initiate or improve efforts to measure, report, and reduce methane emissions.

The move is the latest evidence that investors are concerned with the financial, reputational and environmental risks associated with unmonitored and unchecked methane venting and leakage.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. It’s responsible for about 25% of the warming our planet is experiencing today. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.

Methane is also the main ingredient in the natural gas, the product that major global producers have marketed to investors as central to their growth in the years ahead. Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year, or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies.

The owners and asset managers involved in the PRI’s methane initiative oversee more than $3 trillion. They are global in scope, representing a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. PRI plans to engage 29 companies on four continents, from across the natural gas supply chain (the names aren’t being made public). They will be urging greater transparency and stronger, more concrete actions, including setting methane targets and participating responsibly on methane policy.

A centerpiece of PRI’s ongoing efforts to improve companies’ methane management and disclosure will be the Investor’s Guide to Methane, published jointly with EDF last fall. PRI’s global methane initiative complements ongoing U.S. engagement efforts on methane led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and CERES.

Trumping Shortsighted Politics

This is an uncertain time for the methane issue globally. On the one hand, President Trump and many U.S. lawmakers are trying to roll back methane policies established during the Obama administration. On the other, officials in Canada are expected to release draft oil and gas methane regulations this year, and similar rules are being developed in Mexico.

Political backpedaling from methane controls is shortsighted and counterproductive for both industry and environment, ignoring one of the biggest and most cost-effective opportunities we have to slow the warming of our globe. But these major investors, whose long-term investment horizons require them to look beyond the short-term calculus that dominates both politics and executive compensation packages, are taking a view to match their financial stake in the industry’s future.

What they see is a growing liability for an industry looking to the production and delivery of natural gas a growth engine over the coming decades. The problem isn’t going to go away, no matter what they’re saying in Washington.

Producers like BP, Shell and Chevron routinely cite rising global demand for natural gas as a primary driver of growth and valuation. But in markets for new electric generating capacity, natural gas is increasingly competing on a cost basis with clean, renewable sources like wind and solar. Failure to deliver on its frequent promises to deliver a more climate-friendly energy choice puts the gas industry and its investors at risk.

That makes methane the key variable. Conservative estimates are that, worldwide, companies are releasing at least 3.5 trillion cubic feet of methane to the atmosphere each year. That’s about the same amount as all the gas sold by Norway – the world’s seventh largest producer. Besides being a huge climate problem, it’s also a huge waste of a valuable product, and perhaps an indicator that attention to the integrity of operations is not as great as what companies claim.

Industry Awakens to the Problem

Concern about methane isn’t limited to oil and gas investors. There’s growing awareness within the industry itself that methane poses a reputational risk, sparking some companies to start addressing the challenge.

For example, 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total – recently launched the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), a billion-dollar investment to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. Their primary focus will be carbon capture and storage and reducing oil and gas methane emissions.

Similarly, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), a voluntary effort to improve emissions reporting and accelerate best methane reduction practices recently issued its first annual report, detailing emissions found in nine key source categories throughout individual operator’s systems. Launched in 2014, participating companies include BP, Eni, Pemex, PTT, Repsol, Southwestern Energy, Statoil, and Total.

First Steps toward Big Benefits

These are crucial first steps for the industry, and is a sign that companies looking for ways to adapt to the changing climate surrounding its business. But the industry still has a very long way to go. Fixing the problem could yield huge benefits: A 45% reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions would have roughly the same climate impact over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal fired power plants.

Investor calls for action on methane are quickening and now industry needs to show shareholders it will take the necessary steps to deliver on the low-carbon fuel promise of natural gas. Investors want to invest in well-run companies with good governance, and increasingly look to methane as a proxy for efficient operations. As company executives think about how to attract capital, they will be well-served to note this emerging dynamic and proactively get ahead of the issue.

By EDF Blogs

By Isabel Mogstad

Even though Washington policies may be in full retreat concerning the environment, the world’s energy economies are moving toward the future. Growing opportunities in the methane management technology and services industry is one example, where new well-paying jobs in the industry are being created across the U.S. and Canada. These are jobs that could soon be in high demand in other energy-producing countries.

Billions of dollars’ worth of methane – the primary component of natural gas – is escaping from the world’s oil and gas value chain every year. With proven and low-cost fixes readily available from the methane mitigation industry, global methane emissions represent $10 billion in potential revenue for the oil and gas industry.

Two of the top five polluting countries globally, the U.S. and Canada, are showing there is an economic upside to eliminating methane waste by tapping the offerings of this emerging new industry.

Nearly 180 companies provide methane waste and pollution reduction technologies and services in Canada, according to a new job opportunities report released last week by the Methane Emissions Leadership Alliance (MELA), an association for the Canadian methane emissions management industry.

The report found that 80 percent of the companies surveyed anticipate business growth based on the phase-in of Canadian federal and provincial methane rules, which are due out this year. Local businesses supplying emission controls and inspection services to detect and capture lost methane can help oil and gas companies comply with tighter efficiency standards.

Most of these good-paying jobs are also expected to flourish in Alberta.

The economic growth derived from methane standards is positive for the methane management industry, but it also delivers important outsourcing services to oil and gas industry operators, allowing them to recapture otherwise lost revenue.

This new job growth data comes on the heels of yet another recent report citing the economic and job benefits of methane mitigation, showing at least 136 methane mitigation companies in the United States.

Not surprising, the companies surveyed in this new report have seen up to 30 percent growth in the U.S. states that require oil and gas operators to control their methane emissions. Methane rules in several U.S. states, including California, Colorado and Pennsylvania, are gaining momentum as state leaders see the collective economic, industrial and environmental benefits of the policies. And what has been good for this industry in the U.S. is expected to replicate in Canada when it implements its methane rules.

All of the U.S. and Canadian companies surveyed so far consider new methane requirements a critical driver of their business growth. One of the companies surveyed in the Canadian jobs report went so far as to say “there are stronger oil and gas methane regulations in the U.S. and unless Canada develops comparable regulations, it may be more cost-effective to move some jobs from Canada to the U.S.”

Methane monitoring and mitigation costs for industry have already proven themselves to be inexpensive. Fortunately for the oil and gas industry, short-term methane monitoring costs can be overridden by long-term savings.

Jonah Energy is a good example – the company took methane mitigation into its own hands and reduced emissions by 75 percent and saved $5 million in what would have been lost natural gas product.

None of this data should be surprising to anyone familiar with long-term business and market trends. Regulations can be powerful market drivers.

Look at the automotive industry. It’s been nearly 20 years since U.S. airbag legislation was passed in 1998 to protect the safety of drivers. Today, the global airbag market is worth a whopping $23.6 billion – and thousands of lives have been saved.

Hundreds of companies across North America are depending on methane controls. Let’s keep the jobs intact, along with the methane.

By Drew Nelson

Two studies released this week make it clear that Canada’s push toward methane regulations for the oil and gas industry is a smart move. And, while data of Canada’s oil and gas methane problem is still limited, these studies reinforce what research of the U.S. oil and gas industry found: oil and gas facilities are leaking far more than the industry reports — and more than it would like us to believe.

The first study, focused on Alberta and released by the Canadian environmental action organization Environmental Defence, concluded that industry is underreporting the amount of equipment located at their facilities, which means they emit more than official emission inventories report. Additionally, the study found that Alberta’s oil and gas facilities average about one large emission source per well.

The second, conducted by the David Suzuki Foundation and focused in British Columbia, measured methane emissions at existing oil and gas facilities and found that emissions are large and widespread. In fact, in just one development area of British Columbia, facilities could leak 111,800 tons of methane each year – the climate pollution equivalent of burning more than 4.5 million tons of coal or more than two million cars over the next two decades. Further, methane emissions from this area were shown to be at least 2.5 times higher than reported by the B.C. government but may be much higher.

This new research is troubling for several reasons.

First, methane’s not a usual pollutant. Because methane is the primary ingredient of natural gas, every ton of avoided emissions is a ton of natural gas that can be sold. In 2015, more than $320 million USD of methane (95 billion cubic feet) escaped from oil and gas operations in Canada. That amount of wasted fuel was enough to serve all the households in Edmonton and Calgary combined for the entire year.

In addition to being wasteful, these emissions are also exacerbating global warming. Methane is over 80 times more potent a heat trapper than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years in the atmosphere.

Finally, the oil and gas industry is the largest source of man-made methane emissions in Canada. If its methane emissions are dangerously under-reported, the country’s other attempts to reduce its climate emissions are severely undercut.

Together, these two studies underscore the importance of Canada’s effort and Alberta’s action to stem methane emissions from its oil and gas industry. They also expose the folly of industry’s seemingly contradictory claims that (1) there’s no problem, and (2) regulations aren’t necessary because they’ll fix the problem voluntarily. But if industry can’t even report accurate emission figures, how are we to believe it will reduce them?

Economic analyses have shown that methane reduction is extremely cost effective and one of the most powerful short-term climate strategies at our disposal. In the last few years, leaders in Canada and Alberta have demonstrated they agree by committing significant reductions of oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. For context, a 45% reduction worldwide would have the same 20-year climate impact as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants.

These new studies — and the research that must follow — show that policy makers in Ottawa and Edmonton must reduce these emissions, even in the face of growing pressure from industry to walk back their commitments. Methane emissions are a problem around the world, specifically in the oil and gas industry. These new Canadian studies add to the growing body of research that show the problem is worse than we once thought. Fortunately, there are many simple and affordable solutions available to reduce these emissions and, in turn, cut needless energy waste and climate pollution. The need for strong methane rules in Canada and Alberta has never been clearer, and neither has the opportunity for Canada and Alberta to make their oil and gas industry cleaner, more efficient and more responsible.

By David Lyon

In its 2017 GHGI Inventory, published last week, the EPA estimates 2015 methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry were 8.1 million metric tons over 5 million homes.

In addition to estimating 2015 emissions, EPA has revised their estimates of previous years’ emissions based on new scientific data. The lower estimates compared to the 2016 Inventory is almost entirely due to new accounting methods – the actual decrease in emissions from 2014 to 2015 was only 2% and this was due to fewer well completions resulting from lower oil and gas prices.

The EPA still has room for improvement

Although the estimate of O&G emissions went down in this year’s report, it should not be viewed as a final answer since EPA plans to make further improvements including better accounting of super-emitters. These changes likely would counteract the decreases in other emission sources.

While the inventory represents progress in that EPA is continuing the process of incorporating new data such as the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, much work remains to be done.  For example, the inventory still largely ignores “super-emitters,” which science has shown to be a major source of emissions. EPA has made an important step by including emissions from the Aliso Canyon blowout, but they exclude other transmission and storage super-emitters, which an EDF/CSU study found to account for almost a quarter of the T&S sector’s emissions. They also have started to account for production super-emitters by including estimates of emissions from stuck dump valves, but the underlying data for this source are flawed and likely greatly underestimate emissions. EPA’s current estimate of production super-emitters only account for 0.1% of production sector emissions. In contrast,

The EPA needs to continue publishing the GHGI

EDF submitted comments to the EPA after the draft version in February. In part, we said:

Over the last twenty-five years, EPA’s national Greenhouse Gas Inventory has become the most authoritative and widely-used source of information about the nature, scale, and trajectory of U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks. Developed with extensive public input and in collaboration with other federal agencies, the Inventory provides a rigorous understanding of sector-by-sector contributions to emissions of major greenhouse gases, and trends in those emissions over time, in a way that enables consistent comparisons with trends in other major emitting countries. Industry, scientific researchers, and a wide variety of other organizations utilize the data in the Inventory to identify and prioritize opportunities for emission reduction. And the Inventory serves as an invaluable tool for scientific research on climate and air quality. EDF strongly supports EPA’s continued efforts to update, improve, and refine the Inventory over time, in fulfillment of the United States’ obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Not only does the Inventory meet legal obligations, it also demonstrates global leadership by the U.S. EPA’s commitment to submitting a highly detailed, scientifically rigorous, and continuously improved inventory that has been the gold standard internationally. The U.S. should continue to show leadership by adhering to these principles.

In order for EPA to continue their progress in updating the inventory, it is critical that they are allowed to rely on the best science without political interference. We must not be misled by interest groups who claim that the updated inventory is the final answer because it gives the false impression of a large emissions decrease. As a start, EPA should continue collecting data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, assure the data are publically available, and make scientifically supported changes to the GHGRP to increase the accuracy of reported emissions. EPA should also review existing and forthcoming studies that evaluate the contribution of super-emitters and determine the best approach for fully incorporating super-emitters into the inventory.

Additionally, we are dismayed that the EPA has withdrawn their Information Collection Request, as this would have helped resolve some of the outstanding questions about oil and gas methane emissions.

Image source: Wikimedia commons

By EDF Blogs

By Jon Goldstein and Ben Ratner

Much ink has been spilled recently about big new oil and gas investments in the Permian Basin across West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. What some are dubbing “Permania” includes a more than $6 billion investment by ExxonMobil in New Mexico acreage and an almost $3 billion one by Noble Energy across the border in Texas, among others. But a large question remains: will these types of big bets also come with the needed investments to limit methane emissions?

It’s not just an academic question. The answer will go a long way toward revealing if industry actors plan to operate in a way that serves the best interest of local communities and taxpayers. Unfortunately, New Mexico is currently the worst in the nation for waste of natural gas resources from federal lands (such as those that are found in large parts of the state’s Permian Basin). Largely avoidable venting, flaring and leaks of natural gas from these sites also puts a big hole in taxpayers’ wallets, robbing New Mexico taxpayers of $100 million worth of their natural gas resources every year and depriving the state budget of millions more in royalty revenue that could be invested in urgent state needs like education.

Meanwhile, at least one estimate shows a doubling of methane emissions in recent years on 2.1 million acres of Texas’ Permian Basin lands managed by the University of Texas, and students and faculty are calling for needed reductions. There’s good reason to believe that the rest of the Texas Permian has seen similar increases in methane emissions.

The answer to this million dollar waste question will also reveal if these large oil and gas companies plan to “walk the talk” on their commitments to reduce emissions. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas, more than 80 times more potent pound for pound than carbon dioxide in the short term.

For instance, Darren Woods the new Chairman and CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil recently stated in his first blog as CEO: “I believe, and my company believes, that climate risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us – business, governments and consumers – to make meaningful progress.” If Exxon invests $6.6 billion in New Mexico drilling sites (more than the entire U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual budget proposed by President Trump for comparison) but doesn’t make the necessary investments to capture fugitive methane emissions, these words will ring hollow. Conversely, by choosing to set a positive example through implementing methane controls, increasing transparency, and engaging responsibly on methane policy development, Exxon could chart a positive path and set an example worth following.

This is because scientists estimate that methane emissions are already responsible for roughly one quarter of the warming we are experiencing today, and the oil and gas industry is the largest source of industrial methane emissions in the U.S. What’s more, addressing methane pollution will also help alleviate local air quality concerns such as in Eddy County, New Mexico’s number one oil producer and recipient of a failing grade for ozone smog pollution from the American Lung Association.

The “layer cake” of oil and gas resources beneath New Mexico and West Texas may be an energy bounty, but in order for the people of these states to reap the full benefit (and minimize the risks to their health and climate) these companies will have to invest in leading technologies to capture methane waste and pollution. Neighboring states like Colorado have put state methane rules in place for just this reason and their economies have benefited as taxpayer revenue goes up while new methane mitigation small businesses thrive and entrepreneurs invent the next generation of solutions. These states should do the same and oil and gas companies can help show leadership by standing up and advocating for sensible methane policies, just as Noble Energy did with success in Colorado.

As Exxon’s Mr. Woods wrote, “by taking advantage of human ingenuity, embracing free markets and enacting sound government policies, we can meet the world’s energy needs and meet all of our shared aspirations in an environmentally and socially responsible way.” We could not agree more. As all eyes shift to the Permian, there is an opportunity – and an obligation – to put the market to work reducing emissions and to support sound methane emission government policies to set a level playing field and provide an assurance to the public that all companies are operating responsibly.

That’s the only way Texans and New Mexicans will be able to have their cake and eat it too during the next anticipated development boom. And it’s the only way that companies from Exxon and Noble to smaller drillers can address the global concern that methane emissions leaks away the credibility of natural gas in the transition to a low carbon energy economy.

By EDF Blogs

By Andrew Williams and Isabel Mogstad

For decades, the polluter lobby has argued that environmental regulations are too costly and kill jobs. A new report out today is calling their bluff.

The report, from international consulting firm Datu Research, looks at a sector of the economy that focuses on finding and fixing oil and gas leaks – which contribute to climate change, waste energy, and damage local air quality. A growing number of states  have been requiring companies to reduce emissions by regularly checking their equipment for leaks. In those regions, companies that provide pollution control services have grown up to 30%.

This could mean big things for Pennsylvania – which has committed to implementing its own oil and gas pollution protections targeted at cutting methane from new and existing natural gas infrastructure.

Other notable findings include:

• LDAR requires boots-on the-ground to check oil and gas equipment for leaks, which means these jobs carry an important trait: they can’t be sent overseas.
• This industry is also unique in that it offers a variety of high-paying jobs and opportunity for upward mobility from high school grads to PhDs. According to the report, a common entry-level job starts at $27,040. From there, salaries increase to upward of $100,000.
• Companies included in the research anticipate future growth despite signals that federal methane regulation is unlikely; according to the report “the rate of growth will vary based on the regulatory direction chosen at the national level and in key states.”

Pennsylvania is among a growing number of states that have signaled interest in reducing industry’s emissions. In January 2016, Governor Tom Wolf committed to implementing comprehensive methane standards in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, the State Department of Environmental Protection started to make good on that promise by introducing a new permit policy that, once finalized, will reduce emissions from new wells.   However, perhaps due to pressure from industry groups, the administration has delayed finalizing the proposal.

That’s unfortunate since the report reveals that states that have previously clamped down on methane have experienced higher-than-average job growth in this sector. For example, in 2014 Colorado became the first state to require companies to reduce their methane emissions, and as a result it boasts more homegrown methane mitigation businesses than Pennsylvania, despite producing less energy. As the second largest gas producing state in the country, Pennsylvania should be in the lead. By standardizing methane protection Pennsylvania has a real opportunity to catch up with other energy producing states to reduce pollution and prevent jobs from leaving the state.

Multiple analyses have shown that hiring third-party leak detection and repair companies, like those featured in the report, is one of the most cost-effective ways for energy companies to reduce their emissions.  In a recent survey in Colorado, seven out of 10 oil and gas operators said the benefits of regularly checking their equipment for leaks far outweighed the costs.

This report makes clear that economic opportunity and a healthy environment can go hand-in-hand. Smart environmental protections are more important now than ever before as our national environmental protections are under attack. If Pennsylvania policymakers care about increasing the number of good-paying American jobs and ensuring industry is held accountable for its pollution, methane regulations must be a priority.

By Ben Ratner

The biggest irony of the Trump Administration’s attack on environmental safeguards is that it will undermine a central promise of his candidacy: supporting boots on the ground, American jobs in growth sectors. One prime example? The emerging service industry that puts people to work finding and fixing harmful natural gas leaks.

American workers in the methane mitigation industry keep the product, methane (the main ingredient in natural gas), in the pipes and out of the sky. That’s a win for workers, who receive technology training, competitive wages, and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s a win for surrounding communities, as methane emission reductions also help keep smog-forming pollutants out of the air they breathe. It’s a win for oil and gas operators, which make operations more efficient and improve safety. And it’s a win for the climate, since methane is 84 times more potent in the near term than carbon dioxide.

In other words, if winning were more than a campaign slogan, supporting America’s methane mitigation industry would be an obvious opportunity to seize. Unfortunately, President Trump’s anti-jobs approach to undermining methane safeguards does just the opposite.

In attempting to justify rollbacks, the Trump Administration trotted out the familiar argument that environmental safeguards cost jobs. But in reality, the opposite is often true.

Datu Research, in a new report commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund, studied the leak detection and repair service industry by speaking with employers and workers in states like Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Texas. Importantly, Datu found that “rules cutting methane emissions create jobs cutting methane emissions”.

Safeguards requiring methane leak detection and repair increase market demand for those services, thus supporting opportunities for workers including high school graduates to get trained in infrared camera inspection technology.

In fact, mitigation firms reported as much as 30% growth in states with methane regulations. And, companies interviewed by Datu reported plans to grow their workforce by as much as 15% annually.

In other words: More methane safeguards = More leak detection jobs. Fewer methane safeguards = Fewer leak detection jobs.

For an Administration allegedly committed to job creation, it’s baffling why President Trump would move to put such valuable American jobs at risk. All the more so when you consider that 55% of leak detection service companies are small businesses – the growth engine of the America.

Yet, where the Trump Administration falls down, state leaders can stand up for good jobs and a healthy environment.

One immediate opportunity arises in Pennsylvania, where Governor Tom Wolf has committed to cut methane emissions from new and existing sources. With four methane mitigation businesses already headquartered in Pennsylvania, and 11 companies operating in the state, Pennsylvania is poised for significant growth.

Or take New Mexico, a state that unfortunately leads the nation in unemployment rate, but where small businesses like Dexter – who employs a majority Native American leak detection and repair crew to cut methane waste – offer needed job growth. As oil and gas production continues to heat up in the resource-rich Permian Basin, New Mexico’s leaders will have the opportunity and obligation to establish the policy environment in which industry operates responsibly and more methane mitigation jobs are created.

As governors and state legislatures square their energy mix with the dual needs of job creation and environmental protection, supporting an industry that makes oil and gas cleaner should be an easy answer.

American workers don’t want potential jobs to slip through their fingers like lost methane into the atmosphere. After all, that’s not what winning looks like.

By Drew Nelson

Following energy reform in 2013, oil and gas industry expansion in Mexico is moving full steam ahead. The first round of bidding for Mexico-owned deep-water oil leases wrapped last December, ushering in a slew of private companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron for the first time since the 1930s. Additional leases for land that will become hotbeds for oil and gas activity on and offshore are planned later this year.

All of this is happening while Mexico is demonstrating remarkable climate leadership, and while countries and energy companies around the world are beginning to act on controlling methane, a harmful pollutant that routinely escapes from the global oil and gas industry. In other words, the Mexico energy boom couldn’t come at more critical time. Mexico ranks as the world’s fifth largest oil and gas methane emitter. Absent strong rules for future development, these emissions could steadily rise as more oil and gas production comes on line as a result of the energy reform.

Conversely, getting the rules right in Mexico before the energy boom happens makes sense – it’s a lot smarter to require a clean industry from the start rather than trying to clean it up years after it arrives. Mexico taking the steps now to implement strong regulations that support responsible energy development would help ensure important protections for its citizens and growing economy.

The good news is that policies to reduce methane are incredibly cost-effective, and many jurisdictions have already begun to develop and implement regulations to address this powerful pollutant. Recent progress in California is an example of best-in-class oil and gas methane regulations and are an important reference as Mexico seeks to develop similar regulations of its own.

Prevention Underpins California’s Methane Rules

Last week, California finalized the strongest oil and gas regulations to rein in methane pollution anywhere in the U.S., joining other red and blue states that are continuing to act (see here, here and here). California’s new rules require oil and gas companies to curb emissions at both new and old facilities operated on and offshore, and will save millions worth of lost gas every year. This is the first major environmental regulation issued since the new U.S. Administration took office, and it sends a clear message that states are charting their own future as leaders in Washington dismantle vital energy and environmental policies that protect all Americans.

Central to California’s methane journey was Aliso Canyon, a mega gas-leak in Southern California that captured worldwide attention. Caused by a well blowout deep underground at a natural gas storage facility, the disaster became the poster child for how bad the oil and gas industry’s methane problem can get when requirements for routine leak inspections, equipment maintenance and operation is lacking.  Case in point: documents demonstrate the facility wasn’t required to inspect for well-casing thickness or for gas leaks at the surface even though it had experienced an increasing number of infrastructure integrity problems in recent years and was operated without secondary containment systems.

Aliso Canyon – and California’s lesson learned from it– stands as an example for Mexico. It is squarely in Mexico’s interest to ensure that all oil and gas companies operating within its borders meet the same environmental safety standards required elsewhere. Without consistent policies, companies can exploit differences in national and subnational safeguards and ultimately hurt Mexico’s economy and citizens.

Methane: An Urgent Climate Pollutant

To appreciate the significance of Mexico’s situation, you have to consider what’s happening around the world regarding climate science and policy. In March, the World Meteorological Organisation released its State of the Climate Report, and the news was alarming. Global temperature broke records again in 2016, while sea-level rise accelerates. WIRED Magazine concluded, “we have surpassed our understanding of our changing climate and have stepped into truly ‘uncharted territory’”.

There is also growing understanding of the powerful role methane plays in global warming. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas over 80 times more damaging than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years it sits in the atmosphere. Scientists say methane accounts for about 25 percent of current warming and that emission levels are spiking worldwide. Globally, the oil and gas industry is among the largest emitters of methane through accidental or intentional releases.

A climate scientist at Simon Frazer University put it simply: “We need to mitigate both [methane and carbon dioxide] as soon as possible. There are no trade-offs.”

This urgency has a silver lining. Because methane is so potent, reducing it will have quick and powerful climate impact. For example, cutting global oil and gas methane emissions 45 percent by 2025 would have the same short-term climate benefit as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants. In addition, analyses have shown that reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector can be achieved affordably with existing technology.

Mexico’s Energy Boom is Methane’s Next Big Venue

Mexico has been a reliable and visible climate leader – even before its methane pledge last year. And it has a long history of working with leaders in California on a variety of environmental and climate related initiatives.

Now, with new and strong methane model from California, Mexico has a great chance to leverage its pending energy boom to help, rather than hinder, its efforts to meet its international methane pledge. By establishing fair and sensible rules for its growing energy industry, it can not only bolster the boom’s economic impact, but further demonstrate the international climate bone fides it earned in recent years.

Image source: Wokandapix, Pixabay