By Andrew Williams

(From left to right)
John Quigley, Secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environment Protection, joins Cindy Dunn, Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf at a Facebook town hall event Jan. 19 to announce plans to regulate methane emissions from the state's oil and gas industry.

Pennsylvania leaders have a duty to protect Keystone residents from oil and gas pollution.  Fortunately, Governor Wolf and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection  took an important step in that direction this week when they released a blueprint for cutting methane pollution from the natural gas industry.

“The goal here is to cover not only new sources of methane and VOC emissions [from oil and gas facilities], but also existing sources over time,” DEP Secretary John Quigley told hundreds of viewers during a live Facebook town hall event yesterday. “We want to have a comprehensive emissions program that is nation-leading. I think it’s the strongest set of provisions in the country, and I think the number two natural gas producing state in the nation should have the best regulations, and that’s what we’re going to have in Pennsylvania.”

That’s a bold and laudable commitment – one that deserves our support to help make sure the promise becomes reality.

As the second largest gas-producing state in the nation, it’s critical that we get the rules right in Pennsylvania.  In 2014 alone, Pennsylvania operators produced more than 4 trillion cubic feet of gas.  That amount of production comes with an environmental cost that cannot be ignored.

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a highly potent climate pollutant responsible for about a quarter of the global warming we are experiencing right now. Methane leaks are ubiquitous up and down the natural gas supply chain.  They result from both intentional venting and accidental leaks that come from poorly maintained equipment and sloppy field performance.

The ongoing disaster at the natural gas storage facility in Aliso Canyon, California puts a painful spotlight on the need for strong rules and vigilant oversight. It also highlights the fact that emissions are probably much greater than we realize. Traditional emission estimates often fail to capture big leaks in their numbers, so industry-reported data very likely underestimate methane emissions by a wide margin.

Leaking methane also allows smog-forming volatile organic compounds and other toxic air pollutants to escape – increasing the risk of real health impacts to local communities. So, eliminating methane emissions is a win-win, helping reduce the climate impacts from natural gas and protecting communities from health-damaging pollution.

A key feature of Governor Wolf’s announcement is the commitment to regulate natural gas operations that are already up and running today – not just new facilities that will be built in the future. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rules to regulate emissions from future operations, and that’s an important first step. But it won’t address emissions from the thousands of well sites, compressor stations, pipelines and other natural gas facilities that Keystone residents are living with every day.

The EPA needs to put a national framework in place for both new and existing sources of methane so all citizens are protected from harmful emissions – no matter where they live. But Pennsylvanians shouldn’t have to wait.  That’s why action from the Wolf administration is so important.

Pennsylvania is also in a position to help shape a national framework for regulating methane emissions. At EDF, we have long supported state leadership and have encouraged the EPA to look to pioneering states like Colorado – and now Pennsylvania – as models for regulating methane.

Governor Wolf’s proposal is just the beginning of the process in Pennsylvania. Now, it is up to the Department of Environmental Protection to propose, finalize and implement actual regulations as soon as possible. EDF is committed to working with the administration and other stakeholders to ensure Pennsylvania meets its commitment to adopting the strongest and most protective methane regulations in the country.

Photo Source: Governor Tom Wolf 

By Mark Brownstein

The ongoing leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas facility owned by Southern California Gas has driven more than 2,000 families from their homes in the Porter Ranch area of Los Angeles and prompted Gov. Brown to declare a state of emergency. It’s dumped an estimated 83 thousand metric tons of methane into the atmosphere so far (see our leak counter here), with no clear end in sight.

But what are the next steps from here? What are the wider implications of this continuing disaster; and where else could something like this happen? What do we do to prevent another Aliso, and how will Southern California make up for the environmental damages once the leak stops?

The troubling fact is that Aliso Canyon is just the tip of a very big iceberg, reflecting both the industry’s widespread methane problem, and the potential local risks of over 400 other storage facilities nationwide. It spotlights a longstanding, largely invisible problem, promising to shift political dynamics around solutions. And the penalty phase, when it comes, will hopefully codify important principles that will also have a big effect on industry behavior.

The Invisible Crisis Unfolding Every Day

For starters, Aliso Canyon is a particularly egregious example of a problem that’s happening every day across the country. Right now, methane is leaking at every stage of the oil and gas supply chain, from thousands of wellheads to the miles of local utility lines under our streets.

Most leaks aren’t as big as Aliso Canyon, but they add up to over 7 million tons of methane emissions a year – the same 20-year climate impact as 160 coal-fired power plants. You can’t see it, and in many cases you can’t smell it (the noxious smell driving residents from Porter Ranch is added by utilities as a way of enabling you to know when there is a gas leak in your home). But leaks of various amounts are happening every day at tens of thousands of oil and gas facilities nationwide.

EDF and others have done extensive research showing the extent of the problem; where it’s coming from; and ways to fix it. In fact studies released in just the past few months have shown the problem is much bigger than EPA estimates. Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry is fighting new state and federal policies that would improve inspection and maintenance, and reduce these leaks.

Aliso Canyon will undoubtedly force state and federal policymakers, the industry, investors, and others to take a much harder look at these systemic problems.

Can it Happen in MY Backyard, Too?

Storage facilities like Aliso Canyon aren’t just a California problem, either. There are about 400 natural gas storage sites like it across the country.

Generally, the safety and environmental integrity of gas storage facilities are regulated at the state level. While a significant subset of these facilities is subject to federal jurisdiction, current federal rules generally say nothing about the operation and maintenance of  these sites, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency is only now beginning to take steps to regulate methane pollution from pipes and compressors that serve them.

These facilities have mostly flown under the radar. Fortunately, there are some quick ways to start addressing this. EPA has the legal ability to require systematic leak detection and repair of much of the equipment at facilities like Aliso Canyon – along with hundreds of thousands of other wells around the country.

States can also improve their storage well integrity efforts in order to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic failures in the first place. Well integrity oversight requires addressing permitting, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and closure requirements. And the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is charged with overseeing the safe operation of the nation’s oil and gas pipelines and associated infrastructure, can also play a role here.

Standing in the Way of Solutions

Sadly, industry is fighting new national policies that would require oil and gas companies to use basic, low-cost methods to find and repair leaks. Their trade associations acknowledge there’s a problem, but want to be left alone to fix it voluntarily. But all the evidence says that simply won’t work.

That’s why we need national standards to ensure it happens. That includes rigorous leak detection and repair requirements that apply to all sources – those already in existence and the ones that will be built in the future.

Paying the Price, Repairing the Damage from Aliso Canyon

Obviously the top priority now is to stop the Aliso Canyon leak. Governor Brown’s new order declaring the leak a state of emergency should ensure the right mix of resources is brought to bear so that this happens as quickly as possible. But we also need to be thinking about how the utility will address the environmental damage that’s been done, and how we can prevent leaks like this in the future.

Besides stronger regulatory safeguards for the oil and gas industry, we need to look at the demand for natural gas, which is why utilities like SoCal Gas need to store so much gas in the first place. In addition to stronger regulations of gas facilities and operations, it is also sensible to look at how we can reduce dependence on natural gas. California is particularly dependent on gas generation to meet sharp spikes in peak demand; if we can shave even a little off that load, it means less need for Aliso and other gas storage facilities and gas pipelines.

Company Must Fix the Damage

Another key question is how the company plans to repair the damage to the environment. They can’t just write a check and walk away. While the leak is ongoing, it’s impossible to know the full extent of the damage that needs to be compensated. But it’s clear that three things are going to have to happen before we can put this accident behind us:

First, the local community needs to be fully compensated for the damages they’ve suffered.

Second, the environment, and particularly the climate deserves full compensation, with specific focus on reducing oil and gas methane emissions beginning with eliminating methane locally and more generally in the Los Angeles basin where the accident took place.

Third, both the company and the state need to implement regulations and policies targeted at preventing something like this from ever happening again, which also includes measures to reduce the region’s dependence on natural gas, particularly peak gas demand, which is what necessitates facilities like Aliso Canyon in the first place.

One thing we know for sure is that the final emissions tally is going to be enormous – so far equal to burning almost 800 million gallons of gasoline (you can check the latest count here).  The company responsible for the mess needs to be held responsible for cleaning it up, and we not only need to make the community and climate whole, we need to start down a path of a meaningful transition away from peak gas dependence.

Image Source: Energy Information Administration

By Sean Wright

No one likes uncertainty, least of all investors. From changes in interest rates, to supply chain disruptions, the list of risks investors must monitor is long and growing. Good, actionable information is investors’ most important tool for risk management and integral to successful investing. Without proper data, investors are flying blind.

A new report published by EDF this week  throws the spotlight on a growing risk for investors—methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. As so clearly demonstrated by the ongoing and massive leak at Aliso Canyon, methane emissions pose a multitude of expanding risks, with both short and long-term consequences.

Three key risks from oil & gas methane

At 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short-term, methane emissions represent a potent and fast-emerging form of carbon risk. In a world looking to reduce carbon pollution, methane emissions pose regulatory, reputational and economic risks. Preparedness to comply with forthcoming rules varies across the industry, methane undercuts natural gas’ ability to play a role in a carbon-constrained world, and emissions of methane are lost product amounting to $30 billion a year globally.

Investors should be asking themselves these questions:

• Do you know how much money your oil and gas companies are losing?
• Do you know if they have a plan to reduce emissions to limit impacts?
• Do you know how prepared they are to comply with forthcoming regulation?

It’s difficult to find out, and that’s a problem.

The power that good information offers investors

Methane disclosure in the oil and gas industry is poor, leaving investors in the dark. The industry generally fails to disclose the information investors require tor properly manage the aforementioned risks and assess corporate methane performance.

EDF reviewed investor-facing disclosures for 65 large oil and gas companies, and found few companies report on methane and existing disclosures are low-quality, vague and overly qualitative.

If I were an investor, this would concern me.

I would know – before I came to work at EDF, I was an equity analyst on Wall Street. I spent my days pouring over data trying to spot opportunities and risks. The numbers were trustworthy and actionable as figures in financial filings must be audited and reported according to strict accounting rules

One of the most striking findings is that zero of the 65 companies we reviewed disclose targets to reduce methane emissions. Without reduction targets, how can investors know that management attention is focused, and the emissions, and thus risk, will be reduced? Additionally, less than a third of companies voluntarily disclosure emissions –making it difficult for investors to hedge methane risk by investing in companies with comparatively lower emissions,

What investors can do to improve reporting

Improving methane emissions is possible, and our new report offers practical solutions, including a set of methane metrics that can help turn much of the raw data companies already have into meaningful information. Investors should urge companies to report their emissions via platforms such as CDP, which recently revamped its Oil and Gas Sector Supplement using our metrics. Make methane a part of your engagement with management, using a list of questions included in the Rising Risk report’s appendix as a guide.

Asking about methane will send a signal that it is an issue that needs oversight. For example, ask a company how much product they are losing. If they are unwilling or unable to answer that question, shouldn’t that give you pause?

This post originally appeared on our EDF+Business blog.

By Simi George

A survey released this month by a top management consulting firm found that 80 percent of the companies polled – including Apple, Google and Tesla – rank innovation among their top three strategic priorities. Unfortunately, the nation’s utility sector seems to be behind the curve when it comes to embracing this idea.

Utility companies invested just 0.1 percent of revenue in research and development in 2013, according to the National Regulatory Research Institute. That’s less than 1/30th the national average of 3.3 percent for all industries. In fact, R&D spending by energy utilities has declined in absolute terms since the mid-90s. But that’s only one piece of the problem. There’s also the related problem of low adoption of new technologies by the sector, which some have attributed to a culture of caution.

That’s why it was so noteworthy when Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G), New Jersey’s largest and oldest publicly-owned utility, announced it will use data gathered by EDF using cutting-edge leak quantification technology to prioritize a massive $905 million pipeline replacement program. After assessing public safety considerations, PSE&G will use data on methane emissions from its pipes to identify those most in need of replacement.

This data was collected by EDF as part of the methane mapping project. The project uses Google Street View cars specially equipped with methane sensors, and a data processing algorithm developed by researchers at Colorado State University to find and measure the volume of pipeline leaks. PSE&G is the first U.S. utility to connect data on the volume of methane emissions to the implementation of a large scale system modernization effort.

PSE&G Leads; Who Will Follow?

Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. By prioritizing pipeline replacement using emissions data, PSE&G is generating benefits not only for the environment and public safety, but also for ratepayers, who pay the costs of leaked gas.

Will other utilities follow PSE&G’s lead? Theory says yes, but it will take time. 

The typical technology diffusion curve – which represents the rate of diffusion of new technology — is “S” shaped. Adoption of new technology starts slowly, led by a few visionary leaders. Over time, and under the right market and regulatory conditions, information on the success or failure of new technologies can be expected to spread.

PSE&G is not alone in recognizing the benefits of using new technologies to optimize leak management. For example, California’s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is reinventing leak management processes by adopting advanced mobile-mounted leak detection technology, which can help facilitate the efficient implementation of leak quantification at scale. This is all good news. But it’s not enough.

In parallel, we need to continue advancing leak quantification technology. Fortunately, there have been promising policy developments on this front. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions (NARUC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) recently entered into a technical partnership to promote investments in natural gas infrastructure modernization. Through this initiative, NARUC and DOE are seeking to establish leak measurement protocols and identify new technologies for enhancing pipeline safety, efficiency and deliverability.

At EDF, we’re working together with utilities, regulators and other stakeholders to catalyze the adoption and advancement of leak quantification technology. Methane emissions pose a complex problem. New technologies, like leak quantification, can be a key part of the solution — offering multiple benefits and delivering improved economic, environmental and public safety outcomes.

Image Source: Flickr user Steve Fernie

By Tim O'Connor

Methane pollution from the oil and gas industry is a serious problem for our climate and communities, but it’s one most people aren’t even aware of. That’s because, while methane is a powerful pollutant, it is colorless, odorless and invisible to the naked eye.

But, residents of Southern California’s Porter Ranch neighborhood had their eyes opened wide to the methane problem when a natural gas storage well in nearby Aliso Canyon ruptured and created a massive leak right next to their homes – an incident detected by residents in October from the putrid smell of mercaptan, an additive utilities use to more easily detect natural gas leaks.

Natural gas is made mostly of methane, and when it is released unburned, it has a warming power over 84 times that of carbon dioxide over 20 years. So, leaking or intentionally emitting unburned natural gas – which happens not just through malfunctions but often during routine production and transportation of oil and gas – can do major climate damage. The California Air Resources Board estimates that Aliso Canyon is pumping out methane at about 50,000 kg per hour, or about 62 million standard cubic feet, per day – that’s the same short-term greenhouse gas impact as the emissions from 7 million cars.

Now, on day 48 in a very uncertain timeline of the one of the largest U.S. natural gas leaks ever recorded, infrared cameras are giving us a true glimpse at the size of this man-made methane volcano. Looking at side-by-side images of Aliso Canyon taken on Dec. 9 using an everyday camera and one equipped with infrared technology reveals just how blind we are to this kind of pollution:

In the infrared photos, taken using both a color display (left) and black and white (right), the methane plume is plainly visible even though it can’t be seen in the naked-eye view (middle). Shot at a distance of about one and a half miles away, these pictures show how the huge, continuous release of methane forms a massive plume that travels nearly straight up until winds push it northward.

Infrared cameras are one of the many technologies available today to find invisible leaks of methane from oil and gas equipment so they can be repaired, putting a stop to the pollution. The visuals shown here were taken by EDF using an infrared camera rented from FLIR, a manufacturer of methane mitigation equipment.

Again, another stark black and white image clearly shows the massive scale of the leak:

Color images taken with the camera show the methane plume standing out against the surrounding air by displaying infrared light refraction differences as changes in color:

These images – and video footage shot at the site – substantiate the magnitude of the leak, which is estimated to be over 1,000 feet high and several miles long. Spending only a little time comparing the pictures, one can see the methane clearly standing out from any background clouds and coming from the exact location of the well at the center of the mess.

Every day, the Aliso Canyon well is responsible for over a quarter of the state’s daily methane emissions from all sources, and these images show us just what those numbers look like. The mega-leak seen here has not only caused serious health problems for nearby residents, it’s also making a huge climate impact.

The Aliso Canyon incident is an example of the type of risks we face as natural gas infrastructure ages, and is a sobering reminder of how important it is to have rules that ensure gas stays in the pipeline — not in our air.

By Fred Krupp

As I write this, a massive methane leak from a ruptured natural gas storage facility in California is causing, every day, as much climate damage over the next 20 years as seven million cars on the road.

And as the climate talks here in Paris continued over the weekend, The Washington Post noted an increased focus on short-lived climate pollutants such as methane. This focus is an absolute necessity: If we want to solve climate change, we have no choice but to tackle methane emissions.

According to data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane pollution is responsible for 25 percent of the warming our planet is experiencing today. It has this incredible impact because it’s 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the short term.

The largest industrial source of methane emissions is the oil and gas industry, and their environmental impact is staggering: A short-term climate impact equivalent to 40 percent of global coal combustion. That’s a lot of potential benefit to the climate, if we can make significant reductions.

That math is why the danger of unchecked methane pollution also offers us such an opportunity.

Better data is on the way

The need for better methane data is something I heard a lot about several years ago when I was part of a panel looking at the environmental impacts of natural gas.

That’s why Environmental Defense Fund brought together close to 50 leading academic and scientific intuitions and 50 oil and gas companies to launch 16 discrete studies to better quantify oil and gas methane emissions in the United States. More than two dozen peer-reviewed papers have been published from this effort, the latest just this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Based on this model, EDF announced a collaborative effort this week with three international oil and gas producers to work toward a series of rigorous, scientific studies to understand global oil and gas methane emissions.

What we’ve found so far

Studies in the U.S., Canada and Mexico indicate we can cut 40 percent of methane pollution for about one cent per thousand cubic feet.

And industry is confirming that meaningful reductions can be achieved for pennies on the dollar. This past year, Noble Energy, a large oil and gas producer in Colorado, spent just $3 million of its $1 billion in capital budget – three tenths of 1 percent – to comply with state regulations that deliver a 40 percent reduction.

As a whole, the U.S. has committed to a 40-45 percent oil and gas methane reduction by 2025 while Alberta, Canada, has committed to a 45-percent reduction in the same time frame, both goals backed by regulations.

These are encouraging and necessary measures, but more is needed. The International Energy Agency says it will be a “missed opportunity” unless more governments set well-regulated methane goals.

Just as better data in the U.S. and Canada is driving and improving policies there, we hope that better global data will accelerate global oil and gas methane reductions and help the global community tap the potential of these reductions.

With existing technology, we can cut this harmful pollution while increasing the amount of energy available. If we get methane right, it can help the world transition to a cleaner lower carbon future. If we get it wrong, it will make things a lot worse.

Ambition, data, the right regulations and commitment are required, but evidence suggests we’re on the right path. If we get it right, as we can and must, we’ll be closer than ever to turning the corner on climate.  

Image source: Flickr/Adam Cohn

By Steven Hamburg

A new scientific study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, coordinated by EDF, reports findings from the most comprehensive examination of regional methane emissions completed to date. Focused on Texas’ Barnett Shale – one of the nation’s major oil-and-gas-producing regions – the study uses a new, more accurate way to determine the total amount of methane escaping into the atmosphere from the region’s oil and gas production, processing and transportation.

The result is that methane emissions in the Barnett Shale are 90 percent higher than EPA’s inventory data would suggest.

This is just one of several recent studies showing a pattern of underestimating methane emissions in locations across the country. One big reason is that conventional inventories typically fail to accurately account for very large, unpredictable emissions from leaks, malfunctions or other problems. In the Barnett study, these were the source of a large share of total emissions.

Why Methane Matters

The higher emissions rate and the agreement among measurement methods represent an important step forward in our understanding of what it will take to mitigate those emissions. Methane is the main ingredient in natural gas, and a highly potent greenhouse gas, with over 80 times the 20-year warming power of carbon dioxide.

When methane leaks, the climate impact of using natural gas increases. In the case of Barnett Shale gas, based on emissions identified in the study, the climate impact is 50 percent higher over 20 years as compared to the use of natural gas in the absence of any emissions.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=traRDCjwqc8

Getting the Full Picture

The study analyzes data from 12 papers that were published earlier this year as part of an extensive, coordinated effort among more than 10 research teams to quantify oil and gas methane emissions at a regional scale. It affirms the importance of earlier findings that the biggest emissions come from a relatively small number of unpredictable sources that are inherently difficult to anticipate.

For example, in the instance of production sites, 30 percent of those in the Barnett Shale region leak more than 1 percent of the natural gas they produce, which in turn accounts for 70 percent of overall production site emissions. This suggests that frequent and thorough inspection and repair efforts are necessary to find and eliminate methane leaks as they arise.

In this study, scientists compiled an updated, comprehensive inventory of emissions sources from across the oil and gas supply chain, and multiple research teams deployed a diversity of measurement techniques to reconcile the differences between emission rates estimated using airborne (top-down) and ground-based (bottom-up) methodologies that have previously been observed. That means scientists, policymakers and companies can now have greater certainty about methane emission rates not only in the Barnett, but also have proven methodologies that can be used to get a clear picture of emissions elsewhere.

Live case in point in California

A real-life example of just how important high-emitting sources can be is taking place in California right now at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility owned by Southern California Gas. For over a month, a massive leak has been pumping out about 50,000 kilograms of methane an hour – more than a quarter of the state’s estimated daily total methane emissions.

Circumstances at the aging gas storage facility – where the company pumps natural gas back underground into an old oil deposit for times when it is needed – are unique.  But while extreme, it is an example of the kind of large, unpredictable leaks that occur daily throughout the oil and gas supply chain.

Based on the new research just reported as well as other studies that have taken account of super emitters, EPA’s already large national estimate of 7.3 million tons of yearly methane emissions from the oil and gas industry could be much higher (and that doesn’t even include emissions from major malfunctions like the one in California).

Addressing the Problem

Policymakers increasingly recognize the importance of better oversight of oil and gas methane emissions. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed the first-ever national standards for this pollutant from new and modified oil and gas sources. Findings from this new research characterizing methane emissions in the Barnett region can help inform EPA’s rulemaking – for example, the research indicates that strong leak detection and repair requirements are critical to quickly finding high emitting sources and getting them repaired.

But most importantly, the research shows the increasing confidence we now have in dealing with a methane problem bigger than previously recognized, and that means EPA’s work is not yet over. Once a strong set of rules is created for mitigating methane emissions from new and modified sources, EPA needs to address emissions from existing sources that will still be contributing the overwhelming majority of emissions in the coming years. And, as seen in the Barnett Shale region of Texas, where the true scale of the existing problem is now well defined, that will be a significant amount.

As the measurement methods that were validated in the the Barnett research are applied in other regions across the U.S. – and the world – they will provide a much clearer picture of  the state of oil and gas methane emissions, and how to best address them.

By Felice Stadler

One of the country’s largest leaks ever of natural gas, which is primarily made up of the potent greenhouse gas methane, has been going on in California’s Aliso Canyon for over a month. The volume that’s been leaking has been staggering—and the impacts to local residents severe enough to warrant relocating hundreds of families.

Major disasters like the one unfolding in Aliso Canyon have a tendency to grab our attention because the impacts are so acute and can be immediately documented—from the volume of methane that’s leaked (latest climate impacts estimate: equivalent to driving 160,000 cars/year) to the documented health impacts (bloody noses, headaches, breathing difficulties, nausea).

The Aliso Canyon leak, however, also provides us a good reminder of what communities across the U.S. who are close to oil and gas facilities have been increasingly concerned about—the ongoing environmental impact of air pollution that is being released into their neighborhoods, and the safety of those operations. Most of the pollution is invisible to the naked eye, but infrared cameras are bringing the problem into sharper focus, and with that a louder call for action and oversight by federal officials. EPA estimates that today, methane leaks from onshore oil and gas development is contributing climate impacts equivalent to driving nearly 130 million cars annually. And their emissions are contributing to unhealthy air for residents living next door and downwind of this development.

That is why the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) first-ever proposed rules to limit methane pollution from the nation’s oil and gas industry under the Clean Air Act are a welcome development.

At an October event hosted by the Center for American Progress, Gina McCarthy, administrator of the EPA reiterated the need for these important standards, reminding the audience that reducing climate pollution—and the greenhouse gases that cause it, like methane—is a public health issue. “That’s been one of the big surprises to me, how little [people] have made the connection between climate and public health…” said Administrator McCarthy.

Methane pollution from the oil and gas industry packs a double whammy to our health because, as Administrator McCarthy reminded us, its emissions are not only climate forcers, but are also “bottled up” with other pollutants like volatile organic compounds and toxics like benzene. This should give us double the motivation to reduce this unnecessary pollution.

Here’s how methane emissions are delivering that one-two punch when it comes to our health:

Methane speeds up climate change, exacerbating its health impacts

Potent methane pollution leaks throughout the oil and gas supply chain. The amount released annually has the same short-term impact on our climate as 160 coal fired power plants. In fact, our analysis based on data from the world’s leading scientists suggests that more than half of the warming we will experience over the next 20 years will be due to the continued release of methane and other powerful, short-lived pollutants into the atmosphere.

By now, the health impacts (and associated costs) attributed to climate change are well understood. Heat waves, for example, increase the risk of heat stroke and heart problems. And warmer winters are contributing to the spread of pests like mosquitos and, posing greater risks to people and wildlife.

Maybe less well known is that rising temperatures can make local air pollution worse by contributing to faster formation of ground-level ozone, also known as smog. Smog is a dangerous air pollutant that can aggravate asthma and other lung diseases. Breathing unhealthy levels of smog pollution can also increase the likelihood of heart attacks or other cardiovascular problems. Children, who spend a greater share of their time outdoors, are more prone to these consequences, especially the 6.8 million children across the U.S. diagnosed with asthma.

Don’t just take it from me: The American Lung Association warns us that “climate change is already taking a toll on the lung health of millions of Americans from worsened air quality, extreme heat events, wildfires and more.” And just last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics affirmed that “climate change poses threats to human health, safety, and security, and children are uniquely vulnerable to these threats.”

Oil and gas methane pollution is mixed with smog-forming pollutants and toxic chemicals

Over 50 million Americans live in a county home to oil and gas operations that also has measured air pollution levels exceeding the federal health standard.* In states around the country, including rural regions in Wyoming and Utah, increased smog levels have been directly tied to nearby oil and gas operations.

As Administrator McCarthy said, “When you look at methane from the oil and gas sector, you are looking at opportunities to reduce ozone forming chemicals.” That’s because methane is released alongside other toxic chemicals – like benzene, a known human carcinogen. With low-cost solutions available today to cut methane and these other pollutants, this is an easy problem to fix.

The EPA has an opportunity to not only protect communities living near oil and gas operations, but to protect all of us who are impacted by climate change, by securing comprehensive rules to limit methane pollution from the oil and gas industry.  As the American Academy of Pediatrics said “failure to take prompt, substantive action [on climate change] would be an act of injustice to all children.”

Learn more in our health fact sheet, and add your support for these important rules today.

*70 parts per billion is the new ozone standard per the recent EPA announcement.  EPA, in partnership with states, is in the process of determining areas that meet or exceed the standard.

By EDF Blogs

1. Methane is a supercharged climate pollutant

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas packing a climate punch 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released. More than a third of the climate impact we feel today is caused by short-lived pollutants, including methane, which accounts for most of that amount. These emissions are worsening already extreme weather patterns responsible for more frequent, higher intensity storms. And, in the absence of action, these trends are expected to accelerate.

 

2. The oil and gas industry is responsible for over 7 million tons of methane pollution

The U.S. oil and gas sector is estimated to release more than 7 million metric tons of methane emissions into the atmosphere each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

3. Curbing emissions at both new and existing facilities is critical

In January, the administration set a goal of reducing 40 to 45 percent of oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. To help meet that goal, the Environmental Protection Agency recently announced plans to set standards for methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas supply chain. And, the Bureau of Land Management is due to propose a rule that would limit methane for existing operations on public lands. But we can’t reach the national methane reduction goal without comprehensively regulating the numerous sources currently emitting methane. EPA estimates these existing sources will be the ones responsible for 90 percent of our nation’s methane emissions over the next few years.

4. Low-cost, American-made solutions are available

A 2014 analysis by a leading energy consulting firm identified a number of technologies made by U.S. businesses that are helping oil and gas companies find and fix methane leaks. These technologies are currently on the market and enable operators to slash over 40 percent of their emissions across the supply chain by spending, on average, less than a penny per unit of gas.

The outsized opportunity to cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gases quickly, while preventing needless energy waste, makes reducing oil and gas methane emissions the best bargain in the energy business for tackling climate change. Common-sense regulations that make best practices the standard practice can help the U.S. reach its methane reduction goal.

This post originally appeared on the Washington Post's Brand Connect. 

By N. Jonathan Peress

Regulators Bless Plans to Use Information Developed by Environmental Defense Fund and Google in $900M Pipeline Upgrade Program to Improve Safety, Reduce Waste and Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

New York and New Jersey, like many older communities in the US, have thousands of miles of old, leak-prone gas lines under their streets, some dating back to the late 1800s. Besides safety concerns, this leaking natural gas – which is mostly methane – is a potent greenhouse gas and a huge waste that’s ultimately paid for by utility customers. While major leaks posing immediate risk are typically fixed quickly, thousands of others can persist for months or years.

Until now, it’s been hard to measure the problem on a large scale, or to use that information to better focus on upgrades with the biggest benefit for the buck.

But on November 16, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) approved a three-year $905 million plan by the state’s largest utility, Public Service Electric & Gas, to replace up to 510 miles of old pipe. Once safety concerns are accounted for, PSE&G will use data collected using a Street View car equipped with air sensing equipment as part of a research partnership between Google Earth Outreach and Environmental Defense Fund to prioritize the massive investment.

“The data from EDF’s surveying will be an important tool for us to consider when scheduling the replacement pipe work,” said Ralph LaRossa, PSE&G president and COO.

“We are very excited to see a utility and their regulators looking to this sensing and mapping project to guide a significant investment,” said Karin Tuxen-Bettman, Program Manager for Google Earth Outreach. “We hope that this project and our partnership with EDF will lead to even more organizations using this data to find solutions that work for them.”

Landmark Precedent

PSE&G is the first gas utility in the country to consider the amount of gas being lost into the atmosphere as key criteria in deciding where and when to replace aging and leak-prone pipe. The company, its customers and the environment will be the beneficiaries. The BPU approval paves the way for other utilities in New Jersey and beyond to follow suit using new methods for measuring invisible underground leaks in order to improve safety, cost- effectiveness and reduce climate pollution.

For six months, a Google Street View car specially outfitted with methane sensors has been taking millions of individual readings over thousands of miles of roadway in Passaic, Essex and Hudson Counties. Researchers used algorithms developed and tested over three years by EDF, Google and scientists at Colorado State University to assess the vast data stream. PSE&G provided our team with locations and types of pipes in areas it is targeting for investment.

The results of EDF’s survey validate the need for and benefits from PSE&G’s investment plan. Preliminary data revealed roughly four leaks for every mile of underground pipe surveyed. These findings were not unexpected, as PSE&G has been closely monitoring and repairing leaks, and had asked EDF to survey in the areas that its data suggest are most in need of replacement.

Last year, an earlier project uncovered roughly a thousand leaks on nearby Staten Island, in territory served by National Grid. EDF and Google have also mapped Boston, Burlington, Chicago, Indianapolis, Syracuse and parts of Southern California, and they have three other cities in the works. But to date, PSE&G is the first utility to refine its operations using the results of our surveys.

Coming a Sea Change

BPU approval of PSE&G’s plan marks the first time the EDF/Google/CSU leak quantification methodology has been accepted by state utility regulators as an important consideration for prioritizing infrastructure investment. Considering the effects of Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey, and the long-standing efforts of the BPU to enhance infrastructure resiliency, it is no surprise that the Board validated PSE&G’s view that reducing methane greenhouse gas emissions is an important element of its plans.

Officials and utilities in several states including New York, California, and Vermont are also moving towards considering climate impacts in prioritizing infrastructure modernization, and relying on new mapping and measurement solutions.

Scientists and policymakers are increasingly looking at the millions of tons of methane escaping across the oil and natural gas supply chain as both a significant climate problem, but also a major opportunity to achieve big greenhouse gas saving quickly while enhancing safety and saving money for gas customers. Each year, the U.S. oil and gas supply chain releases over seven million tons of unburned methane, which packs 84 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe.

These new developments are a sign that utilities and regulators are taking the methane challenge much more seriously. It’s also an example of a global environmental threat factoring into major local level decision-making.

Image Source: Environmental Defense Fund

By Drew Nelson

Today, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its latest World Energy Outlook, which projects how global energy systems will evolve between now and 2040 and estimates their relative impact on the climate. This annual report always offers important insight into where some of the world’s top experts see the global energy sector heading. But what’s particularly striking this year is its highlight on oil and gas methane, among other interesting conclusions.

The report confirms and builds on IEA’s findings from earlier this summer — that global emissions could peak by 2020 without slowing economic growth, and that reducing methane emissions from the world’s oil and gas industry is one of the fastest, biggest opportunities to make significant climate progress now.

In particular, the gas chapter includes this important takeaway:

"The oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane emissions, a potent contributor to climate change. Outside North America, the absence of robust policy action in this area represents a major missed opportunity to tackle near-term warming. The available evidence suggests that a relatively small number of emitters may account for a large share of overall emissions, but tracking and fixing these leaks – which can be short-lived and intermittent – requires a systematic effort of measurement, reporting and monitoring, backed up by effective regulation."

We couldn’t agree more that the case for policy action and industry leadership is strong. Particularly when there are many proven, low-cost technologies in hand to limit methane emissions from leaking and venting equipment along the global oil and gas supply chain.

One recent example is the economic analysis conducted by ICF to assess the methane reduction opportunity in Canada, the fourth largest global emitter of oil and gas methane, according to a Rhodium Group analysis. ICF’s Canada report concluded, in similar fashion to ICF’s U.S. report, that it is highly cost-effective to curb 45% of Canadian oil and gas methane emissions over the next five years.

International attention is growing on the methane issue, and for policymakers and companies looking closely at it, the new IEA report makes five key points:

1. Methane emissions are a global problem

IEA states very clearly that oil and gas methane comes from all over the globe and from all parts of the value chain: “The oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of global methane emissions, not just from specific types of gas or oil wells, or from a particular region, but rather throughout the globe and from all parts of the industry.”

1. Despite data uncertainty, global methane emissions are still huge

There is a lack of global data on oil and gas methane emissions, a gap EDF is helping to fill by undertaking a series of 16 studies to better understand the scope and scale of the oil and gas methane emissions problem in the United States. EDF is proud that several of these methane science studies were cited in IEA’s annual report but improved reporting and additional science work is needed at the international-level to further inform global methane emissions data and the solutions needed to reduce them. However, even with the uncertainty in the data, according to IEA, the amount of gas lost in 2013 was “equal to the gas production of Algeria in 2013.”

1. Methane is a key climate strategy

Reducing both CO2 and methane emissions is imperative to help reduce global emissions and impacts from climate change. In IEA’s annual report, it stresses that “significant reductions in methane emissions would have the tangible and positive effect of slowing the rate of climate change over the near term, while the effects of parallel efforts to reduce CO2 emissions would be realised over the longer term.”

1. Solutions exist, but will only be deployed if global leaders act

This is perhaps the most important point IEA makes on oil and gas methane. Companies and policy-makers do not need to wait for technological breakthroughs to reduce emissions. The technologies already exist to bring them down; it is a matter of political will to act. IEA goes on to make two other important points:

• “Regulations will be required to ensure that best practices are adopted by all companies, not just a few industry leaders.”
• “There is a need to develop methane reduction goals and quantify progress, exemplified by the U.S. goal to reduce methane emissions by 40-45% below 2012 levels by 2025.”

1. The scale of possible reductions is staggering and industry’s credibility is at stake

If companies and the global community act and seize the opportunity, it will have a real and sizeable impact on global GHG emissions. The IEA estimates that a 75% global reduction of oil and gas methane would represent a cumulative saving of some 165 Mt of methane emissions. According to IEA, this “would be equivalent to almost half the emissions from worldwide fossil fuel consumption in 2013,” (based on a 20 year global warming potential). That’s a staggering amount of emissions reductions that can be had for relatively low-cost, using current technologies, and without requiring significant changes to the way energy is produced and used.

The opportunity is large, but so too is the potential loss for the global economy if we fail to seize it. Companies, in particular should take note that IEA clearly states that “the potential for natural gas to play a credible role in the transition to a decarbonised energy system fundamentally depends on minimising these emissions.”

Heading into December’s Paris climate talks, policymakers are rightly focused on the commitments that countries have already put on the table — and on negotiating an international agreement that establishes a framework for more ambitious action in the future.  At the same time, we already know that more will be needed: Paris is a beginning, not an end.  Because cutting oil and gas methane offers one of the highest-impact, lowest-cost opportunities to tackle climate change, controlling global methane emissions should and must be part of countries’ climate mitigation strategies going forward from Paris.

IEA has done a commendable job highlighting an overlooked, yet important climate solution. The new World Energy Outlook report paints a clear picture: oil and gas emissions are global, significant, and unlikely to be reduced unless policy makers take action.

With last week’s welcome agreement to begin negotiating a phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons, another important short-lived pollutant, under the Montreal Protocol, oil and gas methane is now the single biggest untapped opportunity to immediately reduce global GHG emissions and slow the rate of warming our planet is experiencing now. IEA has outlined some specific opportunities for how to reduce global oil and gas methane, and we hope to work with companies and governments using this report to meet the promise and potential that reducing these emissions offer.

Image Source: International Energy Agency

By Jon Goldstein

In case you missed it, PBS NewsHour recently took a close look at an issue EDF has been deeply involved in: oil and gas methane emissions.

PBS captured what many across the country have experienced for years – frustration with a significant waste and pollution problem. U.S. oil and gas drillers emit millions of tons of methane into the air every year. This pollution increases global warming and deteriorates air quality. As impacted rancher Don Schreiber in Gobernador, New Mexico told the reporter, the problem is “sobering.”

The climate and health impacts of unchecked methane pollution are very real, and so is another component: waste.

Methane essentially is natural gas. It’s a finite and valuable energy resource. Letting it go to waste through leaks, venting and flaring is no different than wasting money. These are real dollars we’re talking about. The market value of the gas that drillers waste each year is valued at over a billion dollars – yet it costs less than a penny per unit of gas to implement technologies and pollution controls that keep more gas in the pipeline rather than in the atmosphere. And once captured, this methane could generate tax and royalty revenue to offset impacts in the local communities that are feeling the brunt of new drilling.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rules regulating emissions at new oil and gas facilities, a positive step in the right direction toward more responsible resource development. But rules on the thousands of wells already out there — so called “existing sources” — are needed as well. And now is the time to act. As reported by PBS, “natural gas production in the U.S. is on the upswing, and is expected to grow more than 50 percent over the next 25 years. That means emissions are likely to increase too, unless measures are taken to reduce them.”

The Bureau of Land Management which oversees oil and gas development on the Schreiber’s ranch and across hundreds of thousands of acres on the western U.S. is also drafting rules to reduce methane waste on federal and tribal lands. Strong action by BLM that includes sensible measures like quarterly leak inspections and addresses both new and existing wells on federal and tribal lands would go a long way toward solving this problem. Approximately 14 percent of U.S. gas production and eight percent of the oil production occurs on federal or tribal-owned lands – and a recent report found that gas wasted there is valued at more than $330 million dollars a year.

And a new, home-grown industry is standing by with solutions to this methane waste problem. As profiled by PBS, companies like Albuquerque-based Quantigy are part of a growing economic sector — the businesses that develop, manufacture and implement the technologies that increase efficiency in the oil and gas industry and reduce waste. A recent report found 76 companies nationwide that manufacture, sell, and support the proven and cost effective methane control technologies that are available today to tackle this problem. The report details a robust and diverse industry, with over 500 different U.S. locations across 46 states. And more than half of the companies in this industry are small businesses. As sensible federal rules come into place, the methane mitigation industry is poised to grow and create more of these job across the country.

As reported by PBS, we have the tools and technologies to cost-effectively reduce methane pollution – it’s time to put them to work. Families like the Schreibers deserve it.

By Aileen Nowlan

Bill Gates, in an interview with The Atlantic, reminded us that if Thomas Edison were alive today, he’d probably recognize a lot of our energy infrastructure – batteries and most coal plants, for example. Gates argued in the interview that we need to drastically speed up the pace of innovation to bring our energy infrastructure out of the Victorian era. But how do we change how we make and use energy? It touches everything we do, but in less than a decade we will be living, working, and traveling differently.

That’s where I –and EDF – come in.  I joined EDF this fall after working as a lawyer, consultant and accelerator for business-social collaborations, and I’ve found that it takes all kinds of skills and experiences to set ambitious targets and turn the impossible into the inevitable. From energy retrofits for churches to starting a clean energy incubator with global energy companies, I’ve attacked the challenge of achieving a low-carbon future from many angles. I’ve been drawing on all of that experience since joining EDF, at what’s proving to be an exciting time for climate change leadership.

Methane: a challenge we have to tackle today

One area where we know we have to innovate – like people stranded on a desert island – is methane emissions from oil and gas. Methane is the most powerful greenhouse gas that almost no one has heard of. And more importantly from a climate perspective, methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are cheap to eliminate, if you can find them. The recently-announced regulations on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry won’t take us all the way to the 40-45% reduction in methane emissions the administration has set as a priority. We need action at hundreds of thousands of oil and gas facilities, and that’s just for U.S. onshore oil and gas. Worldwide, methane leaks amount to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2012, or the equivalent of 40% of the total CO2 emissions from burning coal.

How do you innovate fast enough to attack this challenge? One approach we at EDF have taken with the Methane Detectors Challenge is to identify a need – invisible methane leaks – and envision a tool that didn’t yet exist that could enable the action we need – operators finding and fixing leaks faster. The ultimate goal is to make tools like that a reality, and bring to market continuous methane detection systems that are so affordable they can be deployed throughout the oil and gas supply chain.

Pilot partnerships

Last week in Houston we brought together eight oil and gas operators, and other partners in the Challenge. It’s been a long journey to get here: the meeting followed eight weeks of field testing of four promising technologies, and before that, nearly two years of refining specifications and screening technologies. Now, with the results of field testing in hand, we are moving to pilot a couple of the systems with oil and gas operator teams. This is a new role for a 50-year-old environmental organization. It feels fast –we’re pushing ourselves and others to make decisions and take action in months, not years.

But is it fast enough? How do you increase the pace of innovation? To find out, we are building learning into the DNA of the Challenge in a number of ways.

We’re staggering field deployment, working with collaborative operator teams, and building feedback into the process so operators and developers can make improvements immediately.  We’ll gather, anonymize, and share those insights, reevaluate, and month four should look different from month one. This process has us moving at the speed of a startup, continuously iterating and improving, keeping this unusual mix of collaborators rushing together to finalize and roll out our first pilot projects.

Environmental data for the twenty-first century

It can’t – and shouldn’t – take years for transformative action to tackle climate change. Technology is changing faster with every day that passes. Our phones and medical care are unrecognizable to our great-great-grandparents, and I hope that in a few years, our energy systems will be to us as well. We need smart grids, enabled by low-cost sensors that match energy from the wind and the sun to the ebb and flow of our daily lives. Our relatives would never have imagined we could generate street-by-street maps of methane emissions – but we’re making them, today, using Google Street View mapping cars – visualizing leaks from cast-iron pipes laid when they were young.

But unlike our grandparents, we shouldn’t wait for that transformation. And we don’t have time to. Let’s get our energy systems up to speed—in this generation.

This post originally appeared on our EDF + Business blog.

By Dan Grossman

A growing chorus of voices from across the West is voicing its support for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to address oil and gas methane emissions and waste on public and tribal-owned lands.

New rules currently being considered by the Department of the Interior will help address the more than $300 million worth of gas wasted by the oil and gas industry each year on these lands. By keeping gas in the pipe and out of the air they will also help states and tribal communities realize additional tax and royalty payments that are crucial for investment in the educational, health care and infrastructure needs. It’s why so many communities are encouraging BLM to move forward with strong policies aimed at reducing the waste of this resource.

Land Managers

On October 19, two former BLM directors sent a letter to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget calling for tough new rules on methane emissions. Bob Abbey and Mike Dombeck wrote that the rule would curb natural gas waste and generate welcome revenue for state and tribal governments. They applauded BLM’s leadership to address the problem, noting the Bureau “has the obligation to the American taxpayer to minimize the waste of public resources and avoid harm to public health and the environment.”

Sportsmen and Sportswomen

A thriving outdoor economy depends on clean air, which is why the conservation director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, the state’s oldest sportsmen’s organization, wrote an op-ed in support of the BLM rule. Todd Leahy’s opinion piece argued, “A strong rule can force better resource planning to reduce the industry’s footprint on the land, reduce fragmentation of critical wildlife habitat, and reduce climate pollution.”

Tribal Leaders

Mark Fox, the chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes in North Dakota told the state’s Minot Daily News (subscription) that natural gas flaring is an enormous waste of money for all involved. He noted, “Nobody gets paid. The oil companies don’t get paid, the tribes don’t get paid and the individuals that own mineral rights here on Fort Berthold do not get paid so flaring is not a good thing.” He went on to add that tribal leaders "are working real hard from Washington, D.C. to the Denver offices to try to make the federal government adopt rules" on wells continuing to be flared for a lengthy time.

Members of Congress

In July, both of New Mexico’s U.S. Senators (Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich) joined Representatives Michelle Lujan Grisham and Ben Ray Lujan in a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget supporting strong methane waste reduction rules. New Mexico is among the top producers of oil and gas from federal and tribal lands in the U.S. “Too much of New Mexico's natural gas is being lost due to venting, flaring and leaks,” the members of Congress wrote. “A NASA study has identified a methane hot spot the size of Delaware over the San Juan Basin — the highest concentration in the nation — in an area of high oil and gas production. This methane pollution represents a significant economic loss to the state of New Mexico and the nation.”

These voices represent a broad range of interests, but they’re all calling for the same thing: a strong rule to limit natural gas waste on public and tribal lands. As BLM moves to put forth a draft rule it should note this strong, diverse support to reduce unnecessary and harmful methane waste and pollution.

Photo source: Pixabay

By Sean Wright

People often think of the energy sector as a great place to find jobs, but some of the best, most stable job opportunities in the sector aren’t what you’d think. They’re not dedicated to resource production, but to minimizing the millions of tons of natural gas and associated pollution that leaks as the product is produced and delivered, wasting resources and causing a serious environmental problem.

Each year, more than 7 million tons of methane – the main component of natural gas and a powerful pollutant – escapes from oil and gas operations. These emissions pack the same short-term warming punch as pollution from 160 coal-fired power plants, and equal enough wasted natural gas to heat and cook meals for 5 million American homes.

Companies across the country are already harnessing the power of American innovation to solve this problem, creating new job opportunities in the process. And, a growing trend toward stronger state and federal safeguards to standardize methane reduction best practices is putting more wind in the sails of this growing industry.

Many of the positions being created are skilled, high-paying jobs for workers such as engineers and welders, according to a 2014 Datu Research report on the emerging methane mitigation industry. But these companies need a variety of other positions filled too, from sales to accounting to general labor.

Many of these companies have their roots in traditional equipment manufacturing, such as valves and sealing technologies that keep industrial systems running as efficiently as possible. Others, such as makers of optical gas imaging, are on the cutting edge of new technologies that allow users to identify methane leaks that are invisible to the naked eye.

American small businesses dominate this industry. Over 75 U.S. companies operate 500 different locations across 46 states. Most firms are located near major energy-producing areas in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Pennsylvania, helping the very communities where emissions reductions are most needed.

One example of a growing methane mitigation business is the family-run firm Heath Consultants, founded in 1933 to help natural gas companies find pipeline leaks by conducting vegetation surveys. Nearly 80 years later, this Houston-headquartered business has substantially grown, providing more than 1,200 manufacturing and service jobs nationwide.

There is high potential for more stories like this as energy companies and regulators continue taking steps to limit methane waste. In 2014, Colorado became the first state to require oil and gas operators to find and fix methane leaks. Other states like California, Ohio and Wyoming have all taken action on oil and gas air pollution. Proposed federal rules, which are currently out for public comment, will establish the first national methane standard and require all energy companies to limit their emissions.

A broad range of proven, low-cost technologies to reduce methane emissions are on the market today to achieve the reductions sought by policymakers, as established in a report by consultants at ICF International.

FLIR Systems, Inc. is one company that has seen an uptick in sales following Colorado’s implementation of methane controls. And this isn’t the first time this industry has seen the business impact of regulatory shifts. For example, the vapor recovery compressor market is currently one of the largest growth areas in energy equipment – sources for which EPA established air quality standards in 2012.

Energy companies have a number of good reasons to prevent methane emissions, from limiting their impact on air quality and the climate to preventing product loss and improving operational efficiency. The emerging methane mitigation industry stands ready to deliver these benefits, while simultaneously giving its own industry the boost it needs to thrive and create well-paying American jobs.

This article originally appeared on WashingtonPost.com.

By Drew Nelson

 

A new analysis out today shows Canada’s oil and gas sector can achieve substantial cuts in emissions of methane – a powerful pollutant and the primary ingredient in natural gas – using low-cost pollution controls. Conducted by ICF International, the independent report evaluated the many reduction opportunities for Canada’s oil and gas industry to curb harmful and wasteful methane emissions. EDF commissioned the study and released it in partnership with the Pembina Institute, Canada’s leading clean energy think tank.

Natural gas is about 95 percent methane and packs a climate warming punch 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released. Because of its short-term potency, methane accounts for 25 percent of the global warming we feel today.

Canada is the fourth largest global emitter of oil and gas methane emissions, according to a Rhodium Group analysis. Better controlling these emissions across Canada can provide instant benefits to the climate and for public health (methane is emitted along with other toxic pollutants that lead to smog), while also saving millions in wasted natural gas. And, even better, we now know that reducing these emissions in Canada is highly cost-effective, similar to the conclusion of an earlier ICF analysis done for the U.S. 

The latest ICF report shows that using low-cost and existing technologies Canada can significantly curb its methaneemissions, estimating that the Canadian oil and gas sector can slash emissions by 45 percent below projected 2020 levels. This reduction would be the equivalent of eliminating 27 million tons of carbon dioxide.  Expressed differently, this sizable reduction would be like removing all the cars from the roads in the Canadian provinces of both Alberta and British Columbia.  That’s a big climate benefit that can be achieved for very little cost.

Not only are these reductions attainable, the study shows that the costs to do so are reasonable. In fact, achieving this 45 percent reduction would cost less than one cent per Mcf of gas produced, which comes out to CAD $2.76 (about US$ 2) per metric ton of CO2e reduced. This is incredibly cheap compared to other GHG mitigation options. To implement systems to reduce and eliminate methane leaks and reduce direct venting, the estimated cost to the Canadian oil and gas industry is less than 1 percent of their annual capital spending budget, according to Oil and Gas Journal data. Also, by reducing methane emissions, there are potential revenue opportunities for oil and gas companies to recover and sell gas that is currently lost.

Digging into the findings further, there are opportunities at the subnational level for the provinces of Alberta and BC to attain significant reductions as well.  Alberta and BC are Canada’s main oil and gas producing regions, responsible for nearly 70 percent of Canada’s total methane emissions. This research is particularly well timed as both provinces are focused on developing climate plans.

In particular, the Alberta Climate Change Advisory Panel is wrapping up its consultations with the community designed to inform a new action plan on climate change for the Province of Alberta. Knowing that methane makes up about 11 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta, EDF and the Pembina Institute submitted this new report to the Panel and met with government officials to urge them to consider a specific methane policy goal in the Province’s climate strategy.

Similar to the national findings, the report estimates upstream emissions of methane from Alberta’s oil and gas sector can be reduced by 45 percent below projected 2020 levels by targeting equipment and facilities in the production, gathering, and processing segments. In the case of British Columbia, the report estimates a 37 percent reduction below projected 2020 levels. Emission sources from the midstream and downstream sector are not included at the provincial level.  Nor does the analysis include methane emissions associated with oil sands mining.

While Alberta and BC have taken steps to limit methane to date, there is much more that can be done to reduce methane through sensible regulation.  The report clearly shows that greater reductions are possible and cost-effective. And that there is a significant opportunity for Canada to make strides towards meetings its climate change goals, if it addresses oil and gas methane emissions. These findings are helpful and timely for those policy makers tasked with developing new climate plans and those preparing for international climate meetings in Paris in December.

EDF and the Pembina Institute will be watching developments in the coming months as the Alberta Climate Advisory Panel reports its recommendations for the new climate plan.  We’re looking forward to continuing the dialogue with policy makers in Canada and the U.S. and beyond about this important issue.

By Ben Ratner

There is often staunch disagreement between industry and policymakers on how to address pollution. But an event last week convening business leaders, federal and state officials and other stakeholders showed that there’s at least one idea on which they can agree and work together: the feasibility of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.

Here are four perspectives shared at this event that give me hope we can solve the large, but addressable problem of methane pollution from the oil and gas industry if we take a fact-based, collaborative approach. That would be great news in itself, and powerful precedent for tackling the broader climate opportunities ahead.

Environmental regulations are not a zero sum game. Martha Rudolph, director of Environmental Programs at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, was on the front lines when Colorado proposed the nation’s first direct regulation of methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. At the event, she shared her state’s powerful example of unlikely allies coming together to protect climate and communities in a way that makes business sense.

Instead of tales of industry resistance, she shared a history of business and other stakeholders coming together with state policy makers to formulate and implement cost-effective regulations that will cut 100,000 tons of methane emissions – the climate equivalent of taking over 1.8 million cars off the road. Rudolph reports that the rules have not been challenged in court, and to date, her office had not heard complaints about compliance being difficult or costly . Noble, Anadarko, and Encana supported strong rules at the front end, and even the industry trade associations have rolled up their sleeves and set up trainings to ease rule implementation.

Federal regulators are constantly listening to and learning from industry and community concerns. At Tuesday’s event, Joe Goffman, EPA’s associate assistant administrator, gave us a window into EPA’s outreach to industry and communities ahead of and during the methane and other rule makings. He shared how smart regulations that set a basic floor, combined with industry action to push the ceiling ever higher, can be complementary, saying, “it’s the role of the EPA…. to formulate the rules of the game. But it’s really up tothe stakeholder community, and above all the business community, to find the strategies, the initiatives, and ultimately the innovations to make the outcome we’re going for.”

Rather than assuming they know best, Goffman and former EPA Assistant Administrator Bob Perciasepe shared the appreciation EPA officials have for the comment period underway right now, with Perciasepe even calling this time of stakeholder engagement the “golden moment of a regulatory process.”

Leading companies recognize the need to raise the bar. Companies sometimes fight against regulations, or sit tight and do the bare minimum required for compliance. However, Southwestern Energy’s officer Mark Boling advocated for aggressive industry action to cut methane emissions from today’s infrastructure, and left no doubt that we can get going with proven, cost effective technologies.

Boling affirmed that with industry leadership, the White House’s 40 to 45 percent oil and gas methane reduction goal is possible, and praised programs such as DOE’s MONITOR program that work to unleash the power of technological innovation to create real-time methane detection to cut emissions even further. And he echoed the value of industry working collaboratively with government, praising EPA as “very good at listening to [our] concerns and also very good at looking at what the science is telling us.”

Investment decisions in energy policy are not black and white. Rather than calling for fossil fuel divestment or defending the status quo of under-regulation, Brian Rice explained that his organization, CalSTRS, has a responsibility as an investor representing California teachers to “encourage companies to be more attentive to environmental issues” and specifically, “do what we can to get companies to reduce emissions.” CalSTRS is asking oil and gas companies to clean up their operations, which includes constructively engaging with EPA’s methane rulemaking process, as well as adopting best practices.

In addition to preventing climate risk and improving corporate reputation, investors want companies to address methane pollution because there’s an economic argument for encouraging them to get more product –natural gas, which is mostly methane – to the end user to increase revenues.

There are many private and public sector leaders out there who share the perspectives and constructive approaches of those who took the stageat last week’s event. These examples show we can chart a new, pragmatic path for achieving methane reductions and improve not only our climate and air, but the climate of how we talk to each other.

Photo source: The Hill

By Felice Stadler

Over the last two weeks, EPA has held a series of hearings across the country to collect public testimony in response to its new proposal to curb oil and gas companies’ emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane. The hearings provided a chance for stakeholders in areas where the oil and gas industry has a significant footprint – Dallas, Denver and Pittsburgh – to voice their concerns and perspectives. Lawmakers, business leaders, health professionals, and other community members arrived at the hearings by the hundreds to show support for actions that can stop wasteful drilling practices, improve air quality, and slow climate change.

Out of Denver, Colorado State Representative Joseph Salazar told the EPA he supported efforts to regulate methane pollution simply because “I want to make sure my children have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.”

His remarks were echoed by Christine Berg, mayor of Lafayette, Colorado: “Ask yourselves, shouldn’t all people, no matter where they live, have equal access to clean air?”

The state of Colorado thinks so. In February 2014, the state issued its own policies to regulate oil and gas methane emissions—a decision that was also met with broad public support and even earned favor with the state’s leading oil and gas companies.  They too had good things to say.

“Taking necessary steps to keep methane in the pipes is the right thing to do,” Kate Fay, a representative with Noble Energy, told the EPA at the Denver hearing.

It’s not surprising that even in today’s polarizing political climate, pollution reductions from the oil and gas industry are receiving broad public support because the pollution affects us all and the solutions are affordable and straightforward. Methane is currently responsible for about 25% of the global warming being observed, and it escapes with other pollutants that create smog and cause cancer —so reducing emissions carries significant public health and climate benefits.

• Photo by Kelsey Robinson
• Photo by Randy Francisco
• Photo by Randy Francisco
• Photo by Randy Francisco
• Photo by Randy Francisco
• Photo by Candice Bernd
• Photo by Candice Bernd
• Photo by Candice Bernd
• Photo by Kelsey Robinson

var metaslider_11276 = function($) { $('#metaslider_11276').addClass('flexslider'); // theme/plugin conflict avoidance $('#metaslider_11276').flexslider({ slideshowSpeed:3000, animation:"fade", controlNav:true, directionNav:true, pauseOnHover:true, direction:"horizontal", reverse:false, animationSpeed:600, prevText:"<", nextText:">", slideshow:true }); }; var timer_metaslider_11276 = function() { var slider = !window.jQuery ? window.setTimeout(timer_metaslider_11276, 100) : !jQuery.isReady ? window.setTimeout(timer_metaslider_11276, 1) : metaslider_11276(window.jQuery); }; timer_metaslider_11276();

Methane is also the primary component of natural gas, so leaking methane is actually leaking away product. It’s estimated that over a billion dollars’ worth of gas is wasted every year. That’s why methane policies are receiving praise from many in the business community as well.  They know that regulating emissions is one of the best bargains for addressing climate change because cost-effective tools needed to find leaks and cap emissions are not only available but are being implemented by many companies.

“Our customers have found thousands of leaks each year and significantly reduced their fugitive emissions,” Brent Lammert, vice president of sales at FLIR said during his testimony in Dallas. FLIR manufactures infrared cameras that can be used to detect methane leaks—one of many technologies oil and gas companies can use to reduce emissions.  “We have found the cost for operating an optical gas imaging program to be very affordable even for smaller producers and low producing wells,” he said.

So, if benefits of reducing methane pollution are so straight forward, why bother with federal standards? Because industry has shown it won’t curb emissions on its own. Fewer than 1 percent of all oil and gas producers have participated in EPA’s voluntary methane reduction program–and as a result of this level of inaction, they’re leaking more than 7 million metric tons into the atmosphere each year.

“We need strong rules to cut methane emissions for the health of our children because the industry does what is inspected, not what is expected,” Patrice Tomcik, a member of Mom’s Clean Air Force, told EPA in Pittsburgh.

But just as crowds applauded EPA for their proposed action, they called for stronger protections.

“I applaud the EPA’s proposed federal rule regulating new methane emissions, however, because this rule only covers new and modified sources of methane emissions, it is insufficient to produce the emissions reductions we need,” said Sage Lincoln, a student at the University of Pittsburgh who spoke to EPA about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for future generations. “You cannot allow the thousands of existing oil and gas wells in our state to continue to spew pollution."

This public testimony matters. As EPA’s associate assistant administrator Joe Goffman told a group of policy experts  earlier this week, the comment period is the most important part of the process for ensuring the final rules deliver meaningful reductions. With a final count of 305 community members speaking out in favor of federal action on methane and only 18 against, it’s clear where the public stands. Methane pollution standards are a win for our climate and our communities.

Photo Source: Randy Francisco, Sierra Club

By Sean Wright

*Live morning webcast 9/29*

Around the country, people are talking about methane. Last week hundreds showed up to testify at public hearings in Dallas and Denver, weighing in on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to fight oil and gas methane pollution.

Tomorrow, EPA will hear from many more stakeholders in Pittsburgh, while a panel of experts that EDF is convening in Washington, DC, will discuss how we can cost-effectively reduce methane pollution using technologies already on the market.

The public hearings have largely reflected the concerns of local communities impacted by oil and gas industry air pollution. This is important as an overwhelming majority of voters support EPA’s proposal and view new rules as reasonable and necessary. This is hardly a surprise considering the oil and gas industry wastes over 7 million tons of methane pollution into the air every year, representing enough gas to heat 5 million homes and $1.2 billion dollars (at current prices) that could otherwise help boost our local economies. This tonnage of methane leakage also packs the same short-term warming power as 160 coal-fired power plants each year.

Though the energy waste and pollution is enormous, cutting methane emissions is not an insurmountable problem. That’s what you can expect to hear from tomorrow’s discussion hosted by The Hill titled, “Powering the Economy: A Discussion on Natural Gas, Methane Policy, and American Business.”

Event speakers include leaders from the field such as Martha Rudolph, a Colorado regulator involved in issuing and implementing Colorado’s first-in-the-nation methane rules and Southwestern Energy, an oil and gas operator already integrating methane reduction into their business practice. A comprehensive national policy can provide a level playing field for the entire energy economy, which in turn can boost investor confidence in the energy sector, as speaker Bryan Rice of the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) will likely mention.

FLIR, a company in the methane mitigation industry, will also be speaking about the the proven, straightforward and cost-effective solutions available to reduce methane pollution, and call attention to places where jobs have grown, including Colorado and Wyoming, despite tighter limits on oil and gas pollution being put into place.

We expect tomorrow’s discussion on EPA’s proposal to be a lively one, bringing in a range of perspectives to discuss why it is important to reduce methane, what oil and gas operators can do to limit these emissions using available technology, what EPA’s proposal might achieve and how it can be implemented at manageable cost to industry, and the overall impact that these policies might have on the American energy economy.

Join the conversation online via Twitter at #MethaneForum and by watching the live webcast.

By Simi George

A new Massachusetts law requiring gas utilities to annually report the location and age of known gas leaks has, for the first time, enabled the mapping of gas leaks from natural gas distribution pipelines across the state. This effort parallels EDF’s methane mapping project, as part of which it is publishing maps of methane leaks from utility pipes in various U.S. cities, highlighting the scale of the problem and the need for thoughtful utility and regulatory responses.

The issue is multidimensional. Gas leaks have both environmental and economic consequences, in addition to public safety implications. Most states only require utilities to address leaks that pose a present or future public safety threat. Other leaks can and do continue unabated for years, wasting gas and imposing an undue economic burden on ratepayers. The environmental implications are also serious. Methane, which is the primary constituent of natural gas, is a greenhouse gas, 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe.

Massachusetts is among the first states to adopt regulations responding to the problem, in part, by requiring utilities to be more transparent in their leak management efforts. Along similar lines, California passed a new law last year requiring utilities to report key information on gas leaks including leak management practices, open leaks being monitored/scheduled for repair and a best estimate of gas lost due to leaks. EDF is intervening in an ongoing proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure the adoption of regulations that capture the legislation’s emphasis on improving transparency in utilities’ leak management efforts.

Enhancing transparency in utilities’ leak management efforts is critical to the endeavor to reduce methane emissions from natural gas distribution systems. Communities have the right to know about gas leaks from utility pipes that directly affect them. Requiring utilities to report data on gas leaks has tangible benefits too. It allows for better assessment of the associated risks and the scale of the problem, without which robust regulatory and utility responses cannot be designed. By allowing for utilities’ progress in reducing leak inventories to be measured, it also represents the first step toward greater accountability.

Since the launch of the EDF-Google methane mapping project, certain major utilities that EDF has been engaging with – including Consolidated Edison in New York, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric in California – have chosen to voluntarily develop and publish their own dynamic, public-facing maps of gas leaks from their pipes. None of these utilities are required by existing state or federal regulations to do so, making their efforts particularly noteworthy.

But to improve transparency in utility leak management efforts at scale, it is not enough to rely on the efforts of a few utilities. We need standards that create a level playing field for all players. Massachusetts and California have taken the lead. More states must follow.

Image Source: James Abundis, Boston Globe