By Steven Hamburg

We’ve all seen TV detectives dust a scene for fingerprints. In a study in the journal Nature, a team of scientists did something similar, using carbon isotopes to identify the “fingerprints” of methane– one of the world’s most powerful climate pollutants in the atmosphere.

The study examined the isotopic signature from two types of methane emissions: biogenic (sources like wetlands, landfills and agriculture) and thermogenic (encompassing geologic seepage, activities associated with the oil and gas supply chain or coal mines).

The evidence suggests that not only are we significantly underestimating the share global methane emissions from thermogenic sources, we’re also underestimating how much comes from the production, delivery and use of oil and gas and the production of coal.

According to the study:

“After accounting for geological seepage, emissions attributable directly to the global fossil-fuel industry (natural gas, oil and coal production) are 20–60% higher than in current global inventories."

The findings mirror results of many of the studies of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain coordinated by EDF, which also found that overall levels of methane coming from U.S. oil and gas production and delivery infrastructure were higher than previously thought. In one of those analyses – which included the use of diverse types of measurements – emissions were nearly double what the Environmental Protection Agency had previously estimated. It provided some the critical information leading to the agency’s recent 34% upward revision of oil and gas methane emissions..

This latest research published earlier this week indicated that we have also been consistently underestimating oil and gas methane emissions on a global scale as well. This research also adds an important data set to an ongoing scientific debate on the causes of the almost decade-long increase in atmospheric methane concentrations.  Resolving the competing explanations for this increase will take some time, but this debate in no way diminishes the importance of taking action now to reduce anthropogenic emissions so we can begin to slow the rate of warming.

Rising Tide of Production Offsets Gain from Better Management

The good news is, the study estimates that over the past 30 years, global emissions from the oil and gas industry have fallen from 8% of production to about 2% thanks to better practices and improved technology. But those gains have been overwhelmed as production has soared.

“Natural gas industry improvements associated with management practices, technology, and replacement of older equipment have been credited for reducing CH4 leakage in the past. The global observations used in our study confirm this trend, but the industry improvements have been offset by increased NG production.”

The authors of the latest study concur with our earlier results, indicating that policies are needed to keep the trend in emissions moving downward on a worldwide basis.  While the data suggests that the proportion of natural gas lost to the atmosphere has gone down, it is still far higher than is required to reduce the rate of global warming, let alone stop it.  The good news is cost-effective technologies are available that can continue to reduce methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain .

Opportunities to Act

Scientists are shining a bright light on a powerful climate pollutant during a time when nations across the globe are taking action on climate. Earlier this week the European parliament approved the Paris Climate Deal, which brought the Paris agreement into force, a critical step toward effectively addressing climate change.

Because methane is the second largest contributor to global warming, for any effort to combat climate change to be effective it must include reductions in methane emissions.

Let’s be clear, oil and gas industry’s methane fingerprints aren’t the only ones causing global warming. But those emissions deserve attention not only because they are significant but because they are among the easiest to reduce.

Mounting scientific evidence – this study included – makes it clear that we have the data to support action to reduce oil and gas methane emissions, and we have the technologies to make significant emission reductions happen now.

By Aileen Nowlan

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has committed to regulate existing sources of methane from the oil and gas industry, and it is asking for information from the methane mitigation industry to make sure the rule’s approach and requirements account for recent innovation. The EPA’s announcement comprises the U.S. portion of the North American commitment to cut methane by up to 45% from the continent’s oil and gas industry by 2025. Existing sources in the oil and gas industry make up over 90% of the sector’s emissions, which contribute over 9 million tons of methane pollution annually.

The opportunity is open now to tell the EPA what works in methane mitigation.

Emission standards for existing sources of methane will not only reduce greenhouse gases but could also create new markets and customers for the growing mitigation industry. The regulation will likely start with one or more approved work practices to find and fix methane leaks, describing a technology or group of technologies that must be used in a certain manner. For example, EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new and modified sources of methane required the use of optical gas imaging cameras or “Method 21” instruments. With far more existing sources of methane than new or modified sources, being part of an approved work practice for existing sources would open up a significant market opportunity.

In one of the first steps toward developing the existing source rule, the EPA has set up a voluntary Request for Information, asking anyone with “information about monitoring, detection of fugitive emissions, and alternative mitigation approaches” to submit details by commenting on the Request for Information docket online. The EPA states it is particularly interested in “advanced monitoring technologies” that could be “broadly applicable to existing sources.” The EPA cites as an example “monitoring systems that provide coverage across emission points or equipment in a way that was not previously possible, thus enabling a different approach to setting standards.” A good submission may include “published or unpublished papers, technical information, data, or any other information” that might be relevant.

The deadline to submit information via comment to the agency is November 15, 2016. But there is no need to wait–those who submit earlier will be part of the conversation sooner. And a number of important topics need to be discussed to shape the existing source regulation. The federal New Source Performance Standards and Colorado’s methane regulation contain a pathway for innovative technologies—a mechanism, supported by industry and  environmentalists alike, for the EPA to evaluate and approve better methane reduction approaches. A similar approach could help incentivize advanced technology deployment for existing sources.  This request for information is the first invitation of many to highlight innovation in the methane mitigation industry.

By Mark Brownstein

Conversations around climate change almost always involve carbon dioxide, with good reason. It’s essential to dramatically reduce this pollutant to drive down the total amount of climate warming our children and grandchildren will experience. But, what we’ve also learned over the last few years is that an effective climate strategy needs to do two things: Reduce cumulative warming and the speed at which this warming is happening.

Methane Matters

Next to CO2, methane is the most impactful greenhouse gas. While it breaks down faster in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, methane packs 84 times more warming power for the first 20 years after it’s emitted.

About one-quarter of the warming we are experiencing today is attributable to human emissions of methane, with the oil and gas industry its largest industrial source. Fortunately, there are cost-effective strategies to reduce methane emissions across the oil and gas industry. There is nothing as quick, easy, or cost-effective at slowing the rate of climate change right now than reducing oil and gas methane pollution.

Canada Leads on Methane

To effectively combat climate change, it is necessary to cut both CO2 and methane. Alberta gets this, which is why reducing oil and gas methane emissions by 45% by 2025 is a major element of Alberta’s provincial Climate Plan. The federal government and British Columbia have followed Alberta’s lead, incorporating this goal into their respective climate plans. The federal government is set to announce draft regulations for new and existing sources early next year, which, if done right, will be a significant step forward to the global effort to reduce these emissions. And the neighbors are taking notice.

In March, encouraged by Canadian action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched an effort to regulate methane pollution from existing oil and gas facilities; and in June, at the North American Leaders’ Summit, Mexico committed to joining Canada and the United States in reducing Mexican oil and gas methane emissions by 45% by 2025.

That the three nations of North America are taking significant action to reduce oil and gas methane emissions is no small thing. Together, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico account for nearly 20 percent of global oil and gas methane pollution.

Getting it right in North America can have a big impact globally. A 45 percent reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions can have the same impact on the climate over 20 years as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants and have twice the impact of $1 trillion invested in renewable energy capacity between now and 2030. Closing coal plants and deploying renewable energy are critical to battling climate change, but so is reducing oil and gas methane pollution. And, with Canadian leadership, North America is setting the global bar.

Multiple Benefits

The good news is that reducing oil and gas methane emissions is one climate challenge that is easy to meet. In many cases, fixes are as easy as tightening loose valves and repairing leaky equipment. In Canada, the Environmental Defense Fund and Pembina Institute jointly sponsored an analysis which shows that the oil and gas industry can nearly fully achieve a 45 percent reduction for less than one penny per thousand cubic feet of gas produced – cost that won’t break the bank even when oil and gas prices are low, as they are today. The fixes are proven, low-cost and readily available. This is not rocket science, it’s auto mechanics.

Even better, Canada also has the opportunity to get a head start in positioning itself as a leading provider of methane solutions. One Edmonton-based company, for example, has deployed over 300 non-emitting solar-electric well control systems at off-grid well sites in Canada. With policy actions to reduce methane, companies working in this area are sure to benefit as demand for this equipment and these services is expected to rise, both in Canada and internationally.

Now is the Time for Action

At a time when voices are rising in opposition to oil and gas development because of concern over climate change, it’s hard to believe that oil and gas companies and countries wouldn’t take every available opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases when and where it could, particularly, as in the case of methane, when it is so comparatively easy to do. Jurisdictions, like Alberta and Canada, that move early to tackle oil and gas methane emissions as part of their integrated climate plans, are taking a strong leadership position on climate. By taking the next step to enact the federal and provincial regulations needed to make good on the commitments made, Canada as a whole can provide a roadmap for other oil and gas producing nations to follow.

Image source: Wikipedia

By Daniel Zavala-Araiza

New findings by NASA scientists attributing a giant, invisible cloud of methane – nearly 5 times the size of Mexico City – over the southwestern U.S. to the region’s sprawling web of oil and gas facilities raise important new concerns not just on this side of the border, but for Mexico as well.

Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. Scientists estimate that methane contributes to about 25 percent of today’s warming. Cleaning up methane also reduces other pollutants: both ozone precursors that affect air quality and air toxics that erode human health.

The recent NASA paper linking the methane cloud to production, processing and distribution of oil and natural gas also notes that just a small portion of these sites, about 10%, were responsible for more than half the emissions. This is just the most recent example of a long list of scientific studies that have found that subset of sites or facilities disproportionately account for the majority of emissions. Scientists have called this subset of sites super-emitters.

Why it Matters to Mexico

Methane emissions have rapidly become a high profile challenge for U.S. oil and gas companies and their regulators. Thanks to extensive research, we now have a much fuller picture of the problem – and the opportunities to fix it – than we did just a few years ago. But most other countries, including Mexico, are just starting to peel pack the curtain.

According to a report that compiled oil and gas methane emissions across the world, Mexico is the world’s fifth largest oil and gas methane emitter. The latest version of the national inventory shows that one fourth of Mexico’s total methane emissions come from the oil and gas sector.

Improving Visibility

One of the most promising new ways to measure methane from the oil and gas sector is satellites. The NASA hotspot study is a good example of the big-picture data satellites can provide over a vast region. Analysis of satellite data to learn more about Mexico’s methane emissions is currently underway.

As part of a research project conducted by Harvard University, methane emissions data collected using satellites will be retrieved and compared to the Mexican inventory. By zooming in on the Mexican oil and gas sources, their emissions and locations, we will be able to get a clearer picture about the magnitude of emissions and the accuracy of the inventory. Reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas system requires that we have certainty about how much methane is being emitted and where.

Plugging the Leaks

Plenty of solutions for fixing the oil and gas industry’s methane problem are readily available, and at a very low cost. One recent analysis, for example, showed the country could achieve a 45% reduction in oil and gas methane pollution, while saving about 40 million pesos a year.

The positive climate impact of these low-cost reductions is partially why PEMEX has joined the UN’s Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to measure and reduce its emissions. It’s also why Mexico’s federal government stepped up in June, announcing a 45% national methane reduction goal by 2025 (matching a similar target made by Canada and the United States). This step not only showed significant climate leadership, but once rules are fully implemented, Mexico could meet about 10 percent of its international climate pledge.

Now is the time for Mexico to deliver on strong methane regulations that will require foreign oil and gas companies to operate at the same standard as they will in the U.S.  If this doesn’t happen, growth in this sector catalyzed by historic energy reform could usher in untold amounts of methane pollution that could ultimately undercut Mexico’s ability to meet its climate goals and protect the air quality of its citizens.

This post originally appeared on El Universal. Read this post in Spanish here.

By Daniel Zavala-Araiza

Un estudio publicado recientemente por científicos de la NASA contribuyó a encontrar al responsable de una gran nube invisible de metano extendiéndose en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos y cuyo tamaño es 5 veces más grande que la Ciudad de México. El estudio permitió atribuir este foco de emisiones a la creciente red de instalaciones de la industria petrolera en dicha región – Este descubrimiento levanta preocupaciones no solo para nuestros vecinos del norte, sino también para México.

El metano es un gas de efecto invernadero extremadamente potente. En los primeros veinte años después de ser emitido, el metano es más de 80 veces más potente en calentar la atmosfera que el dióxido de carbono. Los científicos estiman que el metano contribuye aproximadamente a 25% del calentamiento que ya experimentamos hoy en día. En adición a sus implicaciones climáticas, reducir sus emisiones también permite reducir otros contaminantes que se emiten en conjunto con el metano: tanto precursores de ozono que afectan la calidad del aire, como tóxicos que afectan la salud humana.

El artículo científico de la NASA publicado recientemente liga a la nube de metano a actividades de producción, procesamiento y distribución de gas natural y petróleo. También resalta que una pequeña fracción de las instalaciones – cerca de 10%- es responsable de más de la mitad de las emisiones. Este es solo un ejemplo más de una larga lista de estudios científicos publicados en los últimos años que encuentran que un subconjunto de instalaciones dentro de la industria petrolera contribuye desproporcionadamente la mayoría de las emisiones de metano. Los científicos han nombrado a este subconjunto de instalaciones los súper-emisores.

Estos resultados son relevantes para México

En los Estados Unidos, las emisiones de metano se han convertido rápidamente en un reto de elevada importancia tanto para las compañías petroleras como para los reguladores. Gracias a la extensa investigación científica en el tema, ahora tenemos una idea mucho más clara del problema así como de las maneras de solucionarlo. Sin embargo, en otros países – México incluido- la historia del metano y la industria petrolera apenas empieza a dilucidarse.

De acuerdo con un reporte que compiló información mundial reportada sobre las emisiones de metano de la industria de petróleo y gas, México es el quinto emisor mundial de metano. La última versión del inventario nacional mexicano muestra que un cuarto de las emisiones totales de metano provienen de la industria de petróleo y gas.

Mejorando la visibilidad

El uso de satélites para medir las emisiones de contaminantes representa una novedosa y eficaz manera de determinar la magnitud de emisiones de metano de la industria petrolera alrededor del mundo. El estudio de la NASA acerca del foco de emisiones en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos es un ejemplo del tipo de conclusiones que pueden obtenerse utilizando mediciones satelitales. En estos momentos, un proyecto de investigación analiza datos satelitales para elucidar los efectos de las emisiones de metano en nuestro país.

Como parte de un proyecto de investigación de la Universidad de Harvard, un grupo de científicos colecta y procesa mediciones satelitales de metano en México, estimando emisiones y comparándolas con el inventario nacional. Al enfocarse en las fuentes de emisión de la industria petrolera, su magnitud y localización, podremos tener una idea mucho más clara de la magnitud del problema y la exactitud del inventario. Si se buscan reducir las emisiones de metano relacionadas con la actividad petrolera, es imperativo tener certeza de cuánto metano se está emitiendo y dónde.

Eliminado las fugas de metano

Es posible solucionar el problema de la contaminación de metano de la industria petrolera de manera costo-eficiente. Un análisis reciente encontró, que el país puede reducir las emisiones de metano del sector hidrocarburos en un 45% y esto se puede conseguir teniendo un ahorro de aproximadamente 40 millones de pesos al año.

El impacto positivo de estas reducciones de emisiones a bajo costo es parte de las razones por las que PEMEX se unió al Oil and Gas Methane Partnership;  una iniciativa de la ONU cuyo objetivo es la medición y reducción de las emisiones. De igual forma, el gobierno federal dio un paso al frente y en Junio de este año anunció una meta de reducción de las emisiones de metano de 45% para 2025 (una meta similar fue hecha por el gobierno Canadiense y el Estadounidense). Este anuncio no solo demuestra el papel de México como un líder en cuanto al cambio climático, sino que cuando las regulaciones necesarias que se desprendan del anuncio estén implementadas, permitirán que el país alcance cerca del 10% de la meta climática anunciada como resultado de las pláticas en Paris a finales del año pasado. Todo esto con ahorros netos a la economía.

Ahora es cuando México debe desarrollar fuertes regulaciones que garanticen que las compañías extranjeras que quieran operar en México no reduzcan los estándares ambientales con los que operarían, por ejemplo, en los Estados Unidos. Si esto no ocurre, el actual desarrollo y expansión catalizado por la reforma energética podría desembocar en significativas cantidades de metano emitidas a la atmosfera, degradando la habilidad de nuestro país de cumplir con las metas climáticas internacionales y la protección de la calidad del aire y salud de sus habitantes.

Este artículo apareció originalmente en El Universal.

By Elgie Holstein

This morning, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on the Environment will hold a hearing on the EPA’s methane emissions regulations, during which I will offer some insights into how and why the oil and gas industry should reduce methane emissions.

This is the first hearing about the methane issue, and while the panel is tipped in favor of industry and we don’t expect testimony to cover all the facts, here are a couple things to look out for as the discussion unfolds.

Industry representatives who are not in favor of regulations will try to make the following points:

• They will say that the oil and gas supply chain isn’t the problem.

• They will say that the oil and gas industry is more than capable of self-regulating.

• They will say that regulation will cost a struggling industry too much, and will put American jobs at risk.

None of these statements is true.

What is true is the fact that methane poses a significant threat to our environment. Over the first 20 years following its release, methane is some 84 times more potent than CO2 in terms of the climate damage it does. While CO2 represents a continuing, long-term threat in the form of accumulated, long-lived and rising atmospheric concentrations, methane drives near-term climate effects. The result is that 25% of the global warming we are experiencing now is due to methane emissions.

In addition, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that half of the warming we experience over the next two decades will be due to the continued release of methane and other near-term pollutants.

Decisions made now about methane emissions will have a major impact on the rate at which the climate changes over the lifetimes of many Americans living now and spanning the next several generations.

We believe the oil and gas industry needs to clean up its act.

They say they’re not the problem. But, across our economy, the oil and gas sector represents 33% of U.S. methane emissions, the largest of all U.S. sources, according to EPA.

EPA’s latest inventory, published in April of this year, estimates that in 2014, oil and gas industry operations released 9.8 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere—34% higher than previous estimates.

That’s enough to meet the needs of over 7 million households. And, it packs the same climate punch over the first 20 years as the CO2 emissions from more than 220 coal-fired power plants—which for comparison’s sake is more than half the total number of coal plants in the United States.

We believe that we need common sense guidelines.

Industry groups want voluntary measures. And some of the smarter companies are indeed taking steps to address methane emissions. But unfortunately, the majority are not.

Currently EPA’s Voluntary program, the Methane Challenge, includes fewer than 10 out of thousands of producers in the industry.

But some states are leading the way. In Colorado, thanks to the leadership of Governor Hickenlooper and three of the state’s biggest oil and gas producers at the time —Anadarko, Encana, and Noble—together we have worked to craft America’s strongest air pollution rules for oil and gas operations—and the first direct regulation of methane.

The standards require companies to take simple steps that eliminate over 100,000 tons of methane pollution and 90,000 tons of volatile organic compounds from the air each year, which has the same effect as taking all of Colorado’s cars and trucks off the road year after year.

The challenge now is to have these policies apply in every state, and the way to do that is to have stronger national regulations on existing sources and make best practices standard practices.

The White House has announced the praiseworthy goal of reducing nationwide methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by 40- to 45% over ten years. And last August, EPA proposed the nation’s first methane pollution standards for the oil and gas industry. But EPA left an awful lot of methane on the table.

That’s because it applies only to new and modified sources, leaving out a million existing wells and associated infrastructure. In coming years, those existing sources will continue to put out 90% of the industry’s pollution.

We believe that leak detection and repair is affordable.

Industry representatives will remind us that gas prices are at 10-year lows, they are cutting thousands of jobs, and increasing the cost of doing business won’t help their bottom line.

But lower production levels and low price environments aren’t an excuse to pollute. We don’t let factories dump untreated waste into rivers just because prices drop, or because they are smaller than some of their competitors. This is no different.

Cutting methane emissions is generally very inexpensive, costing on average about one cent per thousand cubic feet of gas produced, and the cost of methane leak detection surveys is relatively low as well. Today, methane inspections can cost as little as $250. And of course, one of the benefits of the EPA regulation is that it is already driving innovation in the private sector, which promises to bring those costs down even more.

So, demand for inspection services goes up, accompanied by technology innovation (and with it, jobs), followed by declining costs. Today, there are over 70 companies in 500 different locations across 46 states providing methane-reduction services and support.

Even more compelling, leak detection and repair could save the industry almost $2 billion from wasted product and lost revenue.

We are working towards stronger national regulations. 

As we manage our nation’s bounty of oil and gas, it is important to get the rules right. Doing so will not only help minimize adverse environmental impacts, it is an essential ingredient in building public trust and confidence in the ability and commitment of the industry to reducing negative impacts on public health.

Regulating methane emissions—from both new and existing sources—is an important and cost-effective step in stopping the worst effects of climate change. Other measures are needed as well, including legislation to put a price on carbon that will reflect the full costs of carbon pollution, while simultaneously inspiring new technologies to reduce those impacts and to stimulate further deployment of cleaner alternatives.

We look forward to working with industry and continuing this conversation over the next months.

By Adam Peltz

Infrared footage reveals massive methane emissions from a gas storage facility in California's Aliso Canyon

Last fall, a massive leak from a natural gas storage facility in California’s Aliso Canyon released nearly 100,000 tons of methane pollution into the atmosphere — the largest uncombusted release of this potent greenhouse gas in U.S. history, and seen by many as the industry’s worst environmental disaster since the BP oil spill.

Facilities like Aliso Canyon inject gas pumped in from elsewhere and withdraw it when needed for electric production or heating. Aliso Canyon is the largest field of its kind west of the Mississippi River. There are around 400 such facilities across the U.S., about 14 in California. Until recently, regulatory oversight of these facilities has been uneven at best.

The exact cause of the Aliso Canyon incident is still being investigated, but all signs point to a problem in the aging, corroded casing of one of over a hundred individual wells at the sprawling site. Neither the utility’s maintenance programs nor the state’s lax enforcement of 1980s-era policies were sufficient to prevent this disaster. But now that’s about to change.

California, Feds Eye Tough New Rules

In July, California’s Department of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) proposed new regulations to modernize the way gas storage wells are designed, constructed, tested, maintained and operated. The proposal is strong in many ways, squarely addressing many of the key issues related to maintaining integrity and preventing gas leakage.

As noted in EDF’s public comments, with a few key improvements these rules could be some of the strongest in the nation.

But California regulators aren’t the only ones developing new policies to prevent another disaster. Spurred largely by Aliso Canyon, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which traditionally limited its gas regulation to pipelines, has launched a rulemaking that could impact hundreds of gas storage facilities across the country.

“Consensus Standards” May Fall Short

PHMSA action could be very good news. The question is whether the regulations are strong – and whether they act as a floor, rather than a ceiling, for state oversight. The agency’s evident approach is to adopt the industry “consensus standards” embodied in guidance documents from the American Petroleum Institute. This could pose a problem; the standards themselves caution that they are “intended to supplement, but not replace, applicable local, state, and federal regulations.”

Not only is PHMSA crafting regulations based on industry guidelines that were never meant to serve that purpose, but the agency is also doing it on an extremely fast timetable with minimal public input. Stakeholders (including industry, the public, and even the states that will co-regulate this activity) will apparently not have a chance to respond to the rules until after they have the force of law.

Getting the Rules Right

Here are some key issues that PHMSA should get right from the start.

1. Coordination between state and federal regulators

One of the thornier issues facing PHMSA, California and the dozens of other states with gas storage facilities is how states and the federal government will share jurisdiction over the wells. For facilities that generally do not transport gas across state lines (a.k.a. intrastate facilities), states will have authority, but only if the state rules are certified by PHMSA.

That sounds okay on its face, but PHMSA’s certification plans would require states to adopt its rules word-for-word, opening possible conflicts with current and future state rules that might be stronger than the ones PHMSA adopts. With new California rules expected in the next several months, the sooner state and federal regulators begin discussing options for smooth sharing of authority over intrastate wells, the better.

1. Missing pieces

There is a potential for a true crisis at interstate facilities (generally those that do transport gas across state lines – about half the country’s storage wells). Historically, states have set de facto standards for construction and operation of those wells. But with PHMSA coming into the fold, these wells would now fall unambiguously under federal authority.

PHMSA is developing gas storage rules from scratch and, unlike states, does not have well construction rules of general applicability – i.e., that apply equally to production wells, injection wells and storage wells – to fall back on. The API guidelines that PHMSA is using as a basis for the rules do not cover these essential topics. Unless PHMSA broadens its scope, some of the most important aspects of well integrity may fall through the cracks.

One easy way to avoid this possibility this would be to allow state well construction rules of general applicability to apply to all wells, regardless of their designation as intrastate or interstate.

1. Manage Risk

Risk management planning is a key component of California’s gas storage rule proposal, and will likely be a major part of a federal rule. In order for risk management planning to be truly effective, PHMSA should review and approve plans prior to their implementation, and provide guidance to operators about how much they are expected to reduce risks (one commonly used standard is “as low as reasonably practicable, or “ALARP”). In the absence of such a standard, it will be impossible to determine whether an operator’s risk management plan is sufficiently stringent.

1. Equal protections for equal threats

There are no significant engineering differences between intrastate and interstate gas storage wells. But PHMSA’s rules could usher in an era when they are subject to different requirements even within the same state. If a state rule goes beyond PHMSA’s minimum safety standards, it will apply to intrastate facilities but not to interstate facilities.

A legal technicality should not determine the standards for protecting the health of our communities and our environment.

To get around this, PHMSA can require operators to provide as part of their risk management plans an intention to follow all state rules that do not conflict with PHMSA rules, except where operators can shows that alternative risk control options address the risks raised by a state rule at least as well as state’s solution. This would harness each state’s local expertise and ensure that all wells in a state are responsive to the best rules in that state, whether state or federal.

Leaving a Legacy

For state and federal rule makers alike, this is an historic opportunity to get gas storage right for safety and the environment. Regulating the integrity of gas storage wells requires significant, specialized expertise and in order for government to play a meaningful regulatory role it needs to do more than simply instruct companies to follow industry guidelines.

California and PHMSA should work together to implement leading practices in gas storage well integrity management, reduce risks as much as reasonably practicable, and remain responsive as technologies and practices improve over time. Finding the right balance between prescriptive and flexible rules is critical to preventing another gas disaster.

By EDF Blogs

By Luis Bourgeois, Public Policy Intern, Oil and Gas Program

Until recently Californians were in the dark when it came to the state’s natural gas distribution system and its pollution. But all that is changing now; for the first time ever, consistent data on the annual methane emissions from gas utilities is available for all to see. And what does this data show? California has room to reduce leaks and tighten the integrity of its gas delivery system.

A move toward better transparency

California’s recent step to boost disclosure of the amount of emissions leaked and number of repairs made to gas pipelines and other equipment is the product of Senate Bill 1371 (Leno) passed in 2014, and subsequent regulations from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). SB 1371 took this approach because methane, the main component of natural gas, is a powerful climate pollutant that puts our environment and communities at risk with a leak-prone system across the natural gas transmission, distribution and storage sectors.

This bill also resulted in the CPUC developing new formulas to calculate the statewide amount of gas that California customers pay for, but which is not delivered because it is leaked or vented into the air. This is important because SB 1371 also required that revenues for all activities identified and required to be adjusted based on the amount of “lost and unaccounted for gas”, meaning that customers are not left paying the bill for what gas goes unused.

Results speak for itself

Last month, in a breakthrough for transparency, utilities submitted their eye-opening leak reports to the CPUC, shedding much-needed light on the state’s continued problem with gas leaks and methane pollution.

Here are some key findings that emerged from the reports:

• California lost a lot of gas in 2015

In all, California lost almost 10 billion standard cubic feet of gas last year. While Aliso Canyon’s 2015 load was approximately one-third of this, the remaining gas lost through “normal” leaks and vents (about 6 billion SCF) has the same 20-year climate impact of burning about 1 billion gallons of gasoline.

• Leaks have been going on for years

One surprising and unfortunate finding from the reports was the age of the methane leaks in the state, highlighting chronic problems with repair practices.

For instance, of the almost 46,000 distribution pipeline leaks reported by SoCalGas in 2015, more than 20 percent remained open at the end of the year, and over 1,000 of them have been leaking for five years or longer.

PG&E isn’t really any better in this regard, reporting that over 9,000 of their 20,000 total distribution pipeline leaks were left unrepaired for an average of over three years, while many exceeded five years – and at least one was over 30 years old. While the report didn’t explain why these leaks were left unfixed for so long, these chronic leaks show that improvements in leak detection and repair practices are urgently needed.

• Top emissions sources are consistent across many or all of the utilities

All three of the largest California gas utilities Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) reported customer meter leaks as a leading source of emissions. Metering and regulating station leaks, distribution pipeline leaks and transmission pipeline blowdowns were also found to be a significant emission source at many of the utilities. This reinforces the need for more frequent detection and prioritized repair of leaks.  Blowdowns, which are intentional releases of gas to test or repair pipelines, can be easily and cost effectively mitigated, allowing for immediate reductions from a large emission source.

• Aliso Canyon was huge, but not an isolated problem

Not so surprisingly, these reports reinforced the size and scale of the Aliso Canyon leak. This catastrophe accounted for 60% of SoCalGas’s system-wide emissions in 2015. It was also bigger than PG&E’s total annual emissions last year and nearly 15 times the annual emissions from SDG&E’s entire system. The reports, however, confirm that Aliso Canyon is an extreme example of an all-too common problem, and highlight the need for regulations to require more frequent leak survey and leak repair.

• More improvements are needed for transparent, consistent reporting

Despite the findings noted above, what’s notable is what wasn’t included in the utilities’ methane leaks reports. For instance, many leaks had missing emissions data, and other emissions measurements weren’t assumed to apply to the entire system, likely leading to underestimates in emissions and leaving room for improvement.

In addition to leak reporting, SB 1371 also required utilities to fix leaks and reduce venting using best practices available in the gas industry. As this data shows, with thousands of leaks ongoing across the state, careful yet aggressive implementation is needed.

This initial round of data is a breakthrough for gas customers, who deserve to know how much gas is lost, and for utilities, giving them the tools needed to run a more efficient system. However, there is more work to be done to develop consistent reporting standards. Only then can we accurately determine the biggest sources of methane emissions and reduce these leaks, benefitting both Californians and our environment.

By Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D.

Look up in New Mexico and on most days you’ll see the unmistakable blue skies that make the Southwest so unique.

But there’s also something ominous hovering over the Four Corners that a naked eye can’t detect:  A 2,500-square mile cloud of methane, the highest concentration of the heat-trapping pollution anywhere in the United States. The Delaware-sized hot-spot was first reported in a study  two years ago.

At the time, researchers were confident the cloud was associated with fossil fuels, but unsure of the precise sources. Was it occurring naturally from the region’s coal beds or coming from a leaky oil and gas industry?

Now a team mainly funded by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has published a new paper  in a top scientific journal that starts to provide answers. They find that many of the highest emitting sources are associated with the production, processing and distribution of oil and natural gas.

For this study, the authors flew over a roughly 1,200-square-mile portion of the San Juan Basin and found more than 250 high-emitting sites, including many oil and gas facilities. They also noted that a small portion of them, about 10%, were responsible for more than half of the studied emissions.

This does not come as a big surprise. In 2014, according to industry’s self-reported emissions data, oil and gas sources accounted for approximately 80% or methane pollution in the San Juan Basin.  The findings are also very consistent with results from one of EDF’s methane studies in Texas’ Barnett Shale, which also found disproportionate emissions from super emitters.

Finding super emitters

Since “super emitters” can and do appear anywhere at any time, it is critical to be constantly on the lookout for them so they can be fixed.

The good news is because of the outsized contribution of a fraction of sites, the authors note that reducing these emissions can be done cost-effectively through improved detection practices.

That’s consistent with what we know from a vast and growing body of methane research.  And it means we can make a big dent in the methane cloud.

$100 million in wasted natural gas a year

Of course, that leaking methane isn’t just climate pollution; it’s also the waste of a finite natural resource.

In New Mexico, the vast majority of natural gas production takes place on public and tribal owned lands – meaning that when gas is wasted, it represents a tremendous amount of lost revenue for state and tribal governments. The San Juan Basin is responsible for only 4% of total natural gas production in the country, but responsible for 17% of the nation’s overall natural gas waste on federal and tribal lands. In fact nearly a third of all methane wasted on public and tribal lands occurs in New Mexico.

A report by ICF International found that venting, flaring and leaks from oil and gas sites on federal and tribal land in New Mexico, alone, effectively threw away $100 million worth of gas in 2013 – the worst record in the nation. That, in turn, represents more than $50 million in lost royalties to taxpayers over the last five years. 

Nearby, we see a different story

Capturing methane and preventing waste at oil and gas operations on federal lands is an opportunity to save a taxpayer-owned energy resource while at the same time tackling a major source of climate pollution.

Over the past year, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees federal and tribal lands such as those in the San Juan Basin, has moved to limit methane emissions. The agency based its action in Iarge part on experiences from New Mexico’s neighboring states, which have started to use modern practices and technologies to dramatically reduce this waste.

In 2013, San Juan Basin operators reported almost 220,000 metric tons of methane emissions. By comparison, Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin has almost twice the natural gas production of the San Juan Basin, but only half the emissions.

Why the difference? Wyoming, like Colorado, has worked to put strong new rules in place to reduce emissions. And they are working.

Strong rules from BLM can do the same, but they must be completed and implemented quickly – to better protect the Land of Enchantment and federal and tribal lands across the U.S.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Michigan

By Tim O'Connor

Click image to play video.

After passing the State Assembly Appropriations committee on Wednesday, a little known bill – SB 1441 – is headed for the assembly floor, which is slated to deliver big benefits for consumers and the environment. Not only will the bill create a strong market driver for utilities to operate tighter infrastructure and save California consumers tens of millions of dollars per year, the simple yet innovative approach it takes can chart a course for curbing methane leaks across the industry.

But first, a little context.

As recent as a couple years ago, non-hazardous natural gas leaks and venting were a commonly accepted occurrence across gas utility infrastructure. As long as a leak or a venting wasn’t likely to ignite, utilities could let it go – with many small persistent leaks lasting for decades. And though it sounds hard to believe, gas utilities continuously collect money from consumers through their gas bills to cover the amount of gas utilities lose, even though they also collect money from those same ratepayers to upgrade pipes. This market design works only to protect utilities – giving them money to fix leaks while also covering them if they don’t.

In 2014 however, the legislature made a major change to utility practices, saying gas companies had to use best practices to stop leaking and vented gas because methane, the main component of natural gas, is a potent climate change gas in addition to a safety hazard. Although SB 1371 also said utilities would have to adjust downward the amount they collect from ratepayers based on the amount they lose to the air, uncertainty in legislative terminology left utilities arguing that they should continue to get money to cover their lost gas – a debate which has persisted to present day.

Ratepayers shouldn’t owe money for utility leaks – SB 1441 forces gas companies to run a tighter ship

In 2014, California’s oil and gas industry is estimated to have lost more than $50 million worth of methane, with more than $20 million of that coming from gas utility infrastructure. All told, this gas is enough to have met the needs of about 400,000 California homes, had it not been lost to the air.

Across the gas industry, regulatory efforts like SB 1371 and new rules at the California Air Resources Board are underway to cut the amount of gas lost to the air. But, as long as utilities can force consumers to pay for leaked and vented gas, those efforts can only go so far. By changing state policy from one that says ratepayers owe gas companies for their leaks, to one that says gas companies need to shoulder the burden of their own leaks, the entire system will become tighter and more efficient.

Beyond fixing California’s policy where utilities argue they should have it both ways, SB 1441 is a landmark bill that could influence policy to stem gas leaks across gas system. State Assembly lawmakers have another major opportunity to protect the consumers and the environment. With the major gas utilities opposed to this effort, lawmakers must stand up for the people of California and pass this important bill.

By Irene Burga

Last month, lifelong Kern County, California resident Felipa Trujillo discussed the health impacts her community, located near oil and gas operations, has experienced. “It’s the most contaminated place in the country. I have witnessed many children getting cancer and asthma, and would like to leave a positive future for my grandkids.”

Trujillo was one of over twenty witnesses that appeared last month before the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to testify on the need for strong statewide rules to reduce methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. During the meeting, Board members heard about the importance of the rules from many powerful witnesses, ranging from concerned mothers and fathers, impacted community members overburdened by poor air quality, nurses who consistently treat asthma patients, industry experts, and air district agents from throughout California.

Several Porter Ranch residents testified on what it was like to endure one of the worst methane leaks in U.S. history right in their backyard. “A month prior [to the Aliso Canyon leak being reported] my daughter Emma, 22 months at the time, began showing signs of asthma. Two months after the gas leak was reported, my daughters were diagnosed with acute exacerbation of asthma,” described Porter Ranch resident, Jaqueline Shroeder, calling on the Board to take swift action in approving strong rules.

Big Solutions Needed for Big Health Problems

The oil and gas-rich lands of the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin, where Trujillo and Shroeder reside, respectively, have been some of the most productive energy fields in the country over the last century. However they are also among the nation’s most polluted regions. These districts consistently fail to meet national air quality standards for criteria pollutants, like smog-forming ozone, and have been the subject of much debate over pollution control and its adverse effects on residents.

Regulating methane is critical for the health of these communities because standards that reduce methane emissions from oil and gas development will simultaneously reduce levels of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants.

Now, by proposing the strongest oil and gas methane standards in the nation, California has taken a big step forward in reducing the climate concerns associated with oil and gas methane pollution, and protecting the health and well-being of its residents.

CARB Takes Community Health Concerns Seriously

While poor air quality affects all California residents, disadvantaged communities are disproportionately burdened by pollution from the oil and gas industry, and can therefore especially benefit from these rules, a fact that Chair Mary Nichols acknowledged in her opening remarks. “Many oil and gas facilities are located in or near disadvantaged communities and this regulation will reduce over 100 tons per year of toxic emissions that have an impact on those communities.”

In California, people of color, particularly Latinos, are most affected by oil and gas pollution. Of the 1.3 million Californians that live within a half mile from an active oil and gas facility, over 500,000 are of Hispanic origin. Latinos make up 45% of the worst smog regions of the state, and, nationwide, Latino children are more likely to have asthma, and those with asthma are twice as likely to die from an asthma attack, than non-Latino whites

During the discussion of the rule, the importance and impact of strong community voices became clear.  Board member Phil Serna remarked “This is an opportunity that requires us to reflect back on our mission as an agency which is first and foremost to protect public health. [Methane] has a very strong health component and I’m very glad to hear folks give their very relevant testimony of what it is like to live next to [oil and gas] facilities.”

Continued Community Voices Are Needed

At the close of the meeting the Board unanimously voted to proceed with the strengthened methane rule, which is on track to be finalized in January. While the Board sent a definite signal that a strong rule is on the horizon, there is still work to be done to ensure the final rule is as robust and effective as possible. A public comment period that begins this fall will afford community members one last opportunity to ensure their concerns are heard, which is why it is critical for impacted communities to continue demanding regulators approve strong rules.

Despite the work that remains, last month’s CARB Board meeting gives a reason for optimism about the future of California’s climate, and the public health of its communities. As Kern County resident Juan Flores stated in his testimony to the Board, “Today is a landmark day … and I will be happy to go back to my community and say, ‘We won’t hear excuses anymore. Now we have a clear plan for protecting our health.’ ”

By Steven Hamburg

The United States produces approximately 33 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year. A majority of this gas is converted to electricity at power plants or used for industrial purposes, but about one third ends up making the journey from the well head, through underground pipelines, and into our homes and businesses. How much of this gas gets lost along the way—whether it’s through leaky equipment or other factors—is important because of the damaging climate impacts of methane pollution. And a new study published this week in Environmental Science and Technology is helping to expand our understanding of methane emissions in urban environments.

The study—a multi-year collaboration led by Washington State University and included researchers from Aerodyne, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Purdue and Pennsylvania State universities—used a variety of techniques to measure the rate at which methane is lost to the atmosphere in Indianapolis, Indiana.

This is the second paper in which EDF’s research partners have looked at methane pollution in an urban environment, and the results reveal regional variations. Last year researchers in Boston—an old city with a vast network of aging local gas pipelines—found natural gas was being emitted at a rate of about 38 kilograms per person. That’s enough natural gas to fuel about 200,000 homes each year. By contrast, in Indianapolis—which recently replaced much of its leak-prone, cast iron pipelines with tighter plastic pipes—emissions were almost 50 percent less per person. These results confirm our previous understanding that old pipes are prone to leaks. But, it also indicates that aging gas pipelines are not the only source of natural-gas derived methane emissions.

This study, similar to the one in Boston, relied on measurements from aircraft flying downwind of the city as well as from sensors placed on cell towers to detect emissions from the city.  These results were then paired with site-level measurements and other data. Not unlike other EDF-coordinated studies, this study found that when estimating emissions based on site-level measurements, methane emissions were lower than aircraft or tower-based measurements. In fact in Indianapolis, airborne methane emissions estimated from the aircraft or tower data were anywhere from 3.5 to 6.9 times higher than emissions estimated from specific sources, such as pipes and metering and regulating stations.

The difference between the amount of emissions found at the source versus in the air, from regional methane pollution studies suggest that there are other city sources, beyond the natural gas pipeline and delivery system. Indianapolis has far fewer miles of leaky pipes than Boston, but its fossil fuel emissions still clocked in at a higher rate than previous research indicates—like our methane mapping of gas utility pipelines in these cities. This tells us that some combination of other natural gas sources, like gas meters, furnaces, boilers and hot water heaters are most likely responsible for at least a part, and maybe a significant fraction, of these yet uncharacterized local emissions.

Landfills are another major source to consider. For example, researchers found that one of the largest landfills in Indianapolis was responsible for about one third of the city’s total methane pollution. This revelation comes as EPA just finalized revised emission standards that limit methane emissions from both existing and future-built landfills. There are still additional, important opportunities to reduce methane from these types of biological sources that can complement federal and state efforts to curb this pollution across the oil and gas industry, the nation’s largest methane emitter.

A big takeaway from this study is that a better understanding of end-use methane emission sources is needed. Fortunately EDF—working closely with several university partners—has already started undertaking some of this work, including efforts to analyze emissions from residential and commercial end-use, so we can forge the solutions to make more efficient use of our energy resources and create a cleaner environment.

Photo Source: allenran 917 / Flickr

By Jon Goldstein

It’s unfortunate that a partisan group of Congressional representatives recently tried to turn back the clock on new rules from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management that can protect taxpayers and local communities from the needless waste of our natural gas resources and methane pollution.

It was a disappointing move, considering that a bipartisan group of elected officials came together to defend the BLM’s natural gas waste rule during a budget fight on the House floor in July.

Some members of Congress are really good at expressing their opinions.  However, in this case the facts clearly show that efforts to cut waste and protect our air are necessary and warranted.

Fact: Despite some creative data cherry-picking to spin a different story, the data is clear that methane emissions from oil and gas operations have grown significantly in the past decade (up 8% since 2005).

Methane waste is a big problem. The business consulting firm ICF has estimated that $330 million per year in federal and tribal natural gas resources are wasted due to venting, flaring and leaks at well sites.

And this means taxpayers are also losing out on tens of millions of dollars in annual tax and royalty payments that could be funding better roads, schools, and other needed infrastructure in impacted communities. This is a problem only getting worse and not solving itself. It is going to take tough but fair regulations – not inconsistent voluntary efforts from industry – to solve it.

Fact: Nonpartisan observers agree this problem needs attention.

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that BLM should do more to protect taxpayers from unnecessary waste of their natural gas resources. The GAO finds that BLM needs more consistent policies in place to better limit methane waste and pollution from oil and gas production on the hundreds of thousands of acres of federal and tribal lands it oversees – the sort of requirements the BLM is in the process of finalizing.

Fact: Support is strong for BLM action to cut methane waste and pollution across the West.

• More than 200,000 individuals and groups commented in support of the BLM proposal during the public comment period.

• At the BLM’s public hearings in Farmington, New Mexico, Oklahoma City, Lakewood, Colorado and Dickinson, North Dakota voices supporting strong BLM methane action far outweighed the opposition by a ratio of more than 3:1.

• More than 80 local officials across the West, including county commissions in La Plata, Park and San Miguel counties in Colorado and Rio Arriba and San Miguel counties and the Santa Fe city council in New Mexico, all supported the rules.

• Business groups, methane mitigation companies, Latino organizations, agricultural groups, sportsmen groups, public health experts, clean air advocacy organizations, and taxpayer organizations have all voiced support for BLM’s efforts to limit methane pollution and waste.

• This is consistent with recent polling that found bipartisan majorities (fully 80 percent) of Westerners support commonsense rules to cut oil and gas waste on BLM managed lands.

In January, the BLM issued a strong proposed rule aimed at curbing natural gas waste and pollution on the nation’s federal and tribal lands. It’s now time for the BLM to strengthen and finalize this rule without delay to protect taxpayers, clean up our air, create jobs, and put American energy to good use.

Photo credit: Earthworks

By Jon Goldstein

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management should do more to protect taxpayers from unnecessary waste of their natural gas resources. That’s the main takeaway from a new report from the nonpartisan U.S. Government Accountability Office.  Its findings again underline the urgent need for BLM to finalize strong new standards to reduce methane waste.

Methane is both the primary component of natural gas and a very potent climate pollutant. In fact, pound for pound, methane is more than 80 times worse for our climate than carbon dioxide in the short term. This means that unnecessary methane waste and pollution like the GAO found in this new report is a double whammy – depriving taxpayers of revenue due to us for the development of our natural gas resources and dangerously accelerating climate change.

The GAO finds that BLM needs more consistent policies in place to better limit methane waste and pollution from the oil and gas production it oversees on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal and tribal lands. It’s a big problem.

The business consulting firm ICF has estimated that $330 million per year in federal and tribal natural gas resources are wasted due to venting, flaring and leaks at well sites. And this means taxpayers are also losing out on tens of millions of dollars in tax and royalty payments each year that could be funding better roads, schools and other needed infrastructure in impacted communities.

Luckily, with the support of a diverse variety of stakeholders across the West, BLM is currently finalizing new rules that can help stop this waste and pollution.

In January, the BLM issued a strong proposed rule aimed at curbing natural gas waste and pollution on the nation’s federal and tribal lands. With a few key improvements, such as ensuring frequent leak inspections, and efforts to minimize flaring to the greatest extent possible, these rules will reduce waste of taxpayer owned resources and minimize the impact of oil and gas operations on the nation’s communities and families.

As the GAO report illustrates, it is now time for the agency to strengthen and finalize these needed rules without delay.

By Ben Ratner

The climate change discussion is percolating even in surprising places. The latest sign: the American Petroleum Institute’s recent formation of an internal task force on climate change. Reportedly the new task force’s mandate is to revisit API’s approach to this crucial issue, going into an election year and with ever greater scrutiny on fossil fuels.

It is too soon to know whether the task force will rubber stamp a business-as-usual approach defined by glossing over climate concerns and attacking policy measures, or chart a new path instead.

But if the task force is serious about a fresh look at the issue, here are three keys for the task force to consider as it ponders the future of API on climate.

Face the Facts

The oil and gas industry must be responsive to growing pressures from its investors, corporate customers, and Americans affected by oil and gas operations – from local pollution to climate change.

The historic global climate agreement reached in Paris, supported by nearly 200 countries including powerhouses like the United States and China, was also supported by a wide cross-section of American businesses – including PG&E, which as a natural gas distribution company and power generator is a user of API members’ products and a face to climate-conscious consumers.

Last April, over 400 investors representing more than $24 trillion in assets under management urged stronger leadership and more ambitious policies to lessen risk to investment and retirement savings of millions of Americans. Since then, the 2016 investor shareholder resolution season yielded a record breaking number of resolutions – 94 – addressing climate change, many levied as challenges to large oil companies.

And American public concern on global warming is reaching an eight year high, with nearly two-thirds of adults saying they worry about global warming a “great deal” or “a fair amount”, according to Gallup.

Facing all the facts, not cherry-picking them, can ground the task force’s work in today’s dynamic environment and enable an effective response in a changing world.

Solve Methane

While understanding and concern on the methane challenge has snowballed, API’s response has severely lagged.

But it doesn’t have to.

The methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas industry account for the climate damage over a 20-year timeframe equivalent to roughly 240 coal fired power plants. And yet, when the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules earlier this year requiring operators to implement basic safeguards to detect and prevent emissions, API’s public response was to decry new environmental rules as “unreasonable and burdensome”.

Months prior, API’s combative regulatory filing questioned the authority of EPA even to regulate methane emissions, resisted twice-a-year inspections for accidental leaks and urged inspection exemptions that ignore insights on leak unpredictability.

The next round of methane rules is around the corner, and better late than never for API to embrace the United States’ goal of a 45% reduction in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and to support effective national methane rules grounded in science and economics. Supporting a level playing field to address the invisible but undeniable methane problem would increase investor confidence and keep more product in the pipelines working for the economy, not against the climate. And it just might help build public trust in an industry that according to Edelman lags only the pharmaceutical and financial services industries in that category.

Truth be told, new regulations and compliance are not cost-free, but neither are exploration and drilling. Investing in effective rules will provide climate and environmental safeguards – a needed advancement responsive to legitimate pressure that is only rising.

Support Carbon Pricing

Implementing a market based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is widely thought to be the ultimate key to achieving U.S. climate goals including cutting emissions 80% by 2050. Geographies from northeastern states and California to South Africa and the EU have implemented various forms of carbon pricing. A number of mostly European API members have publicly supported pricing carbon, for example BP recognizing “that carbon pricing by governments is the most comprehensive and economically efficient policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”

And yet, some prominent API members have to date withheld support for carbon pricing, or provided lukewarm quasi-endorsements but not lobbying muscle.

The oil and gas industry has survived through evolving, and it’s time to evolve on carbon pricing. An economically rational policy can provide the investment clarity companies want, while delivering the greenhouse gas reductions that societies, supply chains, and ecosystems need.

API is a large organization with diverse views represented, and the climate task force’s job won’t be easy. But the time for change couldn’t be better.

This post first appeared on the EDF + Business Blog

By Tim O'Connor

As a major producer and consumer of oil and gas, California can set the bar for reducing methane leaks. And today, the Golden State showed it’s up to the challenge, making a critical change in proposed rules aimed at cutting methane pollution from oil and gas wells, pipelines and equipment of the like – now putting California firmly on the path to adopt the nation’s strongest methane controls anywhere.

This matters because methane, the main ingredient in natural gas and a common byproduct of oil production, is a damaging greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame.

A big lesson-learned from the months-long, mega-gas leak at Aliso Canyon, and the similarly tragic eight month gas leak in Arvin, CA in 2014, is that oil and gas infrastructure can fail. While leaks the size of Aliso Canyon are rare, it’s an example of the risk we face daily as this infrastructure ages, and a sobering reminder of how important it is to have protections that ensure methane stays in the pipelines—and not in our air.

Stepping Up Leak Detection

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) stepped up requirements in a final revision to its methane rule proposal by standardizing around quarterly leak inspections at new and existing oil and gas facilities. This improvement follows the latest science on what is needed to effectively detect and reduce methane emissions —because we know that regular inspections are the only way to stay ahead of unpredictable leaks.

It also removes a loophole that the oil and gas industry was pushing to allow operators to inspect facilities less often based on good previous performance. By requiring permanent quarterly inspections, this proposal can prevent elusive methane leaks before they do damage to our health and our environment.

Like California, Federal Rules Need to Address Existing Sources

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency efforts to control methane leaks across the country should take a page out of California’s proposal. Unlike the Golden State’s rules, current national standards only cover oil and gas facilities that will be built or updated in the future, not the over one million existing facilities in use today that, cumulatively, generate almost 10 million metric tons of methane pollution a year.

Leaks from existing facilities represent not only health and environmental concerns but also huge costs to consumers—for example, in 2014 California’s oil and gas industry emitted nearly three times the methane pollution that was released during the Aliso Canyon disaster. This wasted gas is worth more than $50 million, and could have met the heating and cooking needs of about 400,000 homes in the state, had it not been lost. The kicker is customers are paying for this much of this lost gas on their monthly utility bills, and in their lungs through the degraded air they breathe.

CARB’s move to address both new and existing sources of methane pollution from the oil and gas industry is a major step forward in the march that has already been happening around the country in other states such as Colorado, Wyoming,  Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Today, California is ahead of the pack.

It’s not a moment too soon. Yet another storage facility in California, the PG&E McDonald Island facility in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley was found leaking – and is just the latest example showing that inspections like what CARB has proposed are the only reliable way to detect leaks.

CARB deserves our support for making the state’s rules as strong as possible, by requiring companies to rigorously find and fix methane leaks before they damage our communities and the air we breathe.

By Hillary Hull

In response to the deadly natural gas explosion in San Bruno, California, the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is proposing new regulations to make pipelines safer. The regulations will go a long way toward safeguarding communities from the risks of natural gas explosions, but, if they’re done right, they could also protect the climate.

Natural gas is mostly methane – a potent climate pollutant, and reducing the amount of gas that leaks from pipelines also reduces emissions of methane. But there are aspects of the proposal that could result in an increase in methane emissions if proper action isn’t taken. The proposed safety measures require operators to conduct more testing to ensure that pipelines can handle high pressures of gas. Before this testing begins pipeline operators have to empty the pipes by blowing gas down the pipeline. Opponents to the rule say this would create a significant increase in methane emissions, but fortunately a recent study from a leading environmental consulting firm concluded otherwise.

According to the study, methane emissions from these “blowdown” safety testing events would increase transmission and storage sector emissions by less than 0.1%.  Although the overall increase in methane emissions is relatively tiny, they can make an impact on climate. The report found that under the testing requirements in the proposed rule, emissions from unmitigated blowdowns would result in over 20,000 metric tons of methane emissions over the 15-year compliance period – creating the same short term climate damage as the emissions from more than 360,000 passenger vehicles.

Keeping emissions down

Fortunately, the study found that operators can cost-effectively reduce up to 90% of these blowdown emissions by using five basic methane mitigation strategies. These mitigation measures are widely available, and don’t involve rocket science — just planning ahead.

The costs of implementing these measures are marginal and are ultimately outweighed by the benefits of methane reductions. Operators save money when they reduce methane emissions because they retain a valuable product – natural gas – rather than letting it escape, and the communities and climate benefit because we aren’t subjected to the negative impacts of methane emissions.

Costs, Net Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Selected Methane Mitigation options for Blowdown Emissions

($/MT) Interstate Intrastate Interstate Intrastate Interstate Intrastate Flaring $2,665 $2,014 ($163,534) ($85,826) ($1,322) ($1,313) In-line Compression $1,013 $710 ($100,994) ($53,203) ($1,651) ($1,646) Mobile Compressor $13,747 $13,282 ($168,534) ($83,058) ($1,556) ($1,451) Transfer to Low Pressure $1,309 $1,164 ($114,128) ($59,847) ($1,665) ($1,652) Stopples $63,059 $63,059 ($110,096) ($28,457) ($1,071) ($524)

The value of mitigation regarding saved gas and societal benefits outweigh costs, and potential emissions reductions are significant. Further, the testing requirements in the rule are an important part of a safer pipeline system.

Given that operators currently have an array of cost-effective choices to mitigate harmful methane emissions associated with blowdowns, a necessary part of increased pipeline safety, PHMSA’s new rules should require operators to select and employ one of these highly cost-effective mitigation techniques—a step that will help protect communities and the environment.

Table Source: MJB&A study, adapted from Table 6 and Table 8.
*This is the cost for mitigation and does not include value of saved gas or social benefits of methane mitigation.
** This is the cost for mitigation and does include the value of saved gas and the social benefits of methane mitigation.

Photo Credit: Rennett Stowe

By Jayant Kairam

On June 20 and 21, temperatures across the Southwest hit record triple digits. It was a scorching way to start the summer. For Southern Californians, early arrival of extreme heat tested the region’s already compromised electricity system: Residents braced for rolling blackouts as the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility (one of the primary sources of power generation in the region) was offline after a disastrous methane leak last winter. Aliso will remain offline until Southern California Gas Company can assure regulators, legislators, and the community that it can be operated safely and efficiently.

The heatwave was further complicated by devastating wildfires to the north and southwest, but the region was ultimately able to emerge from the threat relatively unscathed. Although thousands of residents dealt with short-term outages, rolling blackouts, and reminders of California’s dramatic energy crisis of the early 2000s, wide-spread blackouts never came and the region was able to breathe a collective sigh of relief.

During the heatwave, focus was rightly on keeping the system running. But now it’s time to look at how we were able to meet historic electricity demand without the system crashing, and how this will inform power providers in the months ahead.

How did grid operators and power providers meet historic demand?

On June 20, energy load across Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP) service area  and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) – which runs the state’s bulk electric power system, transmission lines, and electricity market – hit 51,000 MW (6,000 MW for LADWP’s service area). That’s a record for both grids and at least 9,000 MW more than the electricity demand on the same day in recent years.

These numbers raise some important questions: With the Aliso facilities offline, just how did grid operators and providers meet this historic demand? Was demand met with clean and affordable resources, or dirty, expensive ones? And, how will this event inform future responses later this summer, when heatwaves are expected to revisit Southern California?

There are certainly a few things we do know.

Utilities and CAISO aggressively promoted Flex Alert advisories, urging customers to shift usage away from peak times of the day and providing conservation tips like raising the AC a few degrees. Ever increasing amounts of local solar and renewables on the grid, driven in part by the California’s landmark SB 350 law, and a late sunset (it was the day before the summer solstice), indicate renewables played a role.

It is also likely gas marketers, power plants, and utilities engaged in new and unprecedented levels of coordination for electricity system balancing – working under new rules CAISO passed just weeks before.

It’s also possible LADWP was able to manage stress on the grid by implementing a new demand response program with a select few commercial and industrial customers. Demand response is a conservation tool that rewards customers who shift some of their energy use away from peak times. As stated in LADWP’s press release on June 21st, the last day of the historic heatwave, General Manager Marcie Edwards said:

“We greatly appreciate our customers’ enthusiasm for this program and willingness to partner with us in reducing the risk of outages [this] summer. We have introduced the program to several groups of large commercial customers over the past few weeks and received a positive response.”

How Did Southern California Keep the Lights on During an Historic Heatwave? We Need to Know.
Click To Tweet

Additionally, based on conversations Environmental Defense Fund has had with LADWP and the mayor’s office, we know of certain risky resources that were considered, but not ultimately called upon. For instance, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates regional air quality standards, authorized LADWP to power up local power plants with polluting diesel generators, though the utility likely didn’t use them during the heatwave. We also know a modest amount of gas remained in the Aliso facility as backup – though, it also wasn’t used.

And with all this coordination, conservation, and emergency backup, luck still probably had something to do with it, too. Even with the sizable challenges, it appears that no other complicating event occurred (like powerline and gas pipeline problems that are predictable in frequency, but unpredictable in time and location).

Why these answers matter

Getting the full picture of how regulators and power providers responded – with what resources and at what cost – is important for customers who want to know the lights stayed on without compromising their health and environment. If providers were able to rely on renewables, demand response, energy conservation marketing, and effective system balancing coordination,   then that’s a positive and informative story worth spreading.

These kinds of stress tests hold lessons on what other measures work – or don’t work.  What types of communication, customer service, and quick, cheap demand reductions were most successful in engaging residents?

Well before the heatwave, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authorized SCE to pursue large-scale emergency energy storage in the form of batteries, double down on energy efficiency programs, and stretch demand response to meet the needs of customers.

With all that activity and new resources available, we need to know what tactics SCE deployed during the recent heatwave, and what the roll-out plan is for hot days down the road.

In late June, the CPUC released a scenario analysis that, while more positive than previous reports, still predicts the possibility of summer blackouts if steps like shifting generation outside the L.A. basin aren’t taken and Aliso resources cannot be safely and reliably utilized. With a system still at risk, the lessons from the recent historic heatwave are ever more critical.

The new normal

Ordinarily, the heat arrives in Southern California in August and September. Unfortunately, this episode portends some stark possible realities. Local climatologists are pointing to a new normal for the region, with rising temperatures over a longer summer period and more events like the June heatwave.

As we plan to get the system right, it’s important to draw upon the lessons of the most challenging times.

We need to lay the foundation now for an affordable, reliable, and clean electricity system in Southern California. Part of this is ensuring we are not over-reliant on one supplier of one energy source to keep the lights on – something the Aliso Canyon leak exposed. The good news is, many of the clean energy tools we need are already in the provider toolbox. Implementing the state’s aggressive renewable energy targets and increasing the penetration of cost-effective energy efficiency are both proven approaches. We also need to use this as an opportunity to fix our energy markets and level the playing field for clean resources to compete fairly and transparently against fossil fuels.

As we plan to get the system right, it’s important to draw upon the lessons of the most challenging times. That way, Southern Californians can be confident we are building a clean and reliable system that can meet the direst predictions.

Abby Spellman provided research for this post.

Photo source: Flickr/Pete Morawski

By Holly Pearen

A ruptured natural gas pipeline in the quiet community of San Bruno, California ignited on the evening of September 9, 2010. The resulting fire destroyed 38 homes, killed eight people, and injured many others. It was one of the biggest pipeline explosions in recent history, and it very likely could have been prevented.

Now, almost six years later, the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is proposing new regulations to prevent serious incidents, like what happened in San Bruno, from happening again.

Safety is always priority one, and it is unfortunate it took a tragedy like this to bring about a much-needed overhaul of these rules.  But,  as a related benefit, the same integrity standards that ensure pipeline system safety can also work to reduce climate-disrupting emissions of methane, the main ingredient in natural gas.

The new regulations –if adopted intact– would make a massive impact, covering over 300,000 miles of existing natural gas transmission pipelines and another 356,000 miles of gathering lines projected to be built over the next few decades. This Thursday, the agency will wrap up the public comment period, and begin deliberating on a final rule. There are three important things to know before the rules become final.

One: Natural gas pipelines are a significant source of methane pollution.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the natural gas transmission and storage system emits approximately 1.28 million tons of methane pollution per year — much of this through fugitive pipeline leaks and other malfunctioning equipment.  Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, which means these leaks are not only wasteful and potentially hazardous, they’re also contributing to climate change.

Two: More pipeline safety testing does not mean more emissions.
PHMSA’s proposal requires pipeline operators to ensure pipelines are constructed and inspected properly.  When pipeline operators conduct certain types of maintenance on their pipelines, particularly pressure tests, they must vacate or “blow down” natural gas through the segment being tested. If that gas is simply vented, methane is released into atmosphere. However, there are cost-effective alternatives to venting which could reduce methane emissions and save the gas for future use.

A leading environmental consulting firm recently looked at the proposed pipeline rules and the associated emissions that increased safety testing would produce.  They found that unmitigated blowdown events may cause an additional annual average of nearly 1,400 tons of methane pollution. Fortunately, the same analysis calculated that operators can cost-effectively mitigate up to 90% of this pollution by using existing emission reduction technologies – meaning concerns of increased emissions due to safety testing shouldn’t stand in the way of securing a strong pipeline rule.

Three: Stronger pipeline regulations ultimately protect communities and the environment.
By strengthening standards for pipeline integrity, reducing leaks and minimizing emissions PHMSA could both prevent pipeline accidents and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but only if key improvements in the current proposal are retained in the final regulation.  These key rule improvements would:

• Repeal gas gathering line exemptions from critical reporting requirements;
• Subject higher pressure gathering lines over eight inches in diameter to several key integrity management rules, such as leak survey and repair requirements, damage prevention, corrosion control, maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) limits, and emergency planning;
• Require operators to verify MAOP using specific testing methods;
• Expand integrity management requirements beyond only the most densely populated areas so that they are required in Moderate Consequence Areas (MCAs);
• Clarify response timelines and triggering events for pipeline repairs;
• Require integrity assessments and recurring assessments for pipelines outside high-consequence areas.

The public comment period for these proposed regulations ends July 7, meaning the time to voice support for these protections is now.  Join Environmental Defense Fund, The Pipeline Safety Trust, the Sierra Club and others who are calling on PHMSA to help clean the air and protect our communities.

By EDF Blogs

Each month, the Energy Exchange rounds up a list of top clean energy conferences around the country. Our list includes conferences at which experts from the EDF Clean Energy Program will be speaking, plus additional events that we think our readers may benefit from marking on their calendars.

Top clean energy conferences featuring EDF experts in July:

July 26-28: NY Rev Summit (New York, NY)
Speaker: Rory Christian, Director, New York Clean Energy

• Building on New York’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) initiative, Infocast’s second REVolution summit will focus on how utilities are planning for the future, and how they will explore both the promise and the practical development of microgrids, renewable energy, and emerging opportunities for third party providers. The summit will also consider various state efforts to finance and encourage clean energy markets sufficiently to ensure a robust, sustainable power delivery system.

  Other top clean energy conferences in July:

  July 6-7: The Energy Cultures Conference – Sustainable Energy Futures: Understanding Behavior and Supporting Transitions (Wellington, New Zealand)

  • The purpose of this international conference is twofold: to share findings and conceptual advances from the University of Otago's Energy Cultures research program, and to invite other research perspectives on energy-related behavior and its role in transitioning to a sustainable energy future. The conference examines behavior change that includes households; businesses and governments; energy and mobility; and methods of change, including single-factor and systemic.

  July 11-13: National Town Meeting on Demand Response + Smart Grid (Washington D.C.)

  • This conference focuses on the business and policy aspects of demand response and its enabling technologies and applications. One day of the conference will be devoted to roundtable discussions featuring experts in demand response and smart grid. During the roundtables, experts discuss – with each other and with the audience – the latest trends, issues, and business developments. The event includes panels, case studies, and best practices presentations.

  Check out the top clean energy conferences of July 2016
  Click To Tweet

  July 21: The Illinois Renewable Energy Conference (Normal, IL)

  • This one-day event will feature plenary session speakers of interest to all areas of renewable energy, plus breakout sessions. Solar policy sessions include a discussion of Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) equity, and efficiency policy sessions include a panel featuring Suzanne Stelmasek, of Elevate Energy, along with Julia Friedman and Nikhil Vijaykar, of the Midwest Energy Efficiency Association. Other breakout sessions include a technical solar discussion with Harry Ohde of the international electrical workers’ union, as well as an energy efficiency session focusing on efficiency’s economic impact and jobs creation.

  July 23-24: Power Shift Northeast (Philadelphia, PA)

  • Energy Action Coalition will host this event at Temple University. Young climate and social justice leaders from the Northeast will gather for a weekend of workshops, trainings, speakers, and movement-building. Applications for scholarships covering the cost of event tickets are due no later than Sunday, Jul. 17, at 11:59 p.m. ET.

  July 23-27: National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners: Summer Committee Meetings (Nashville, TN)

  • This event is one of three annual meetings where members of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) gather to set policy, share best practices, and discuss crucial industry issues. NARUC committees include Electricity; Energy Resources and Environment; Gas; and Water. NARUC’s summer conference sessions will include litigation and legislative reports, as well as panels about topics that include loss of the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility and maintaining reliability of the bulk electric system, as well as developments in the Ohio debate about competitive electricity markets. [In June, 32 organizations, including Environmental Defense Fund, sent a letter to NARUC, making recommendations for developing good rate designs.]

  Photo source: Flickr/National Retail Federation