Energy Exchange: Methane

By EDF Blogs

By: Jonathan Camuzeaux, Senior Economic Analyst

The surge in natural gas production that has reshaped the American energy landscape has many in the commercial transportation sector considering whether to start shifting their heavy-duty vehicle fleets from diesel to natural gas fuel. Many are looking to an advantage in carbon dioxide emissions to justify the higher cost and reduced fuel efficiency of a natural gas vehicle.

But in fact, a study published today in Environmental Science & Technology finds that while there are pathways for natural gas trucks to achieve climate benefits, reductions in potent heat trapping methane emissions across the natural gas value chain are necessary, along with engine efficiency improvements. If these steps are not taken, switching truck fleets from diesel to natural gas could actually increase warming for decades.

Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, has 84 times more warming power than CO2 over a 20-year timeframe. Reducing emissions throughout the natural gas value chain is an important opportunity to reduce our overall greenhouse footprint.

Growing Body of Research

The new study examines several different types of engine technologies, and both liquefied and compressed natural gas fuels, and concludes that a conversion from diesel could lead to greater warming over the next 50 to 90 years before providing benefits to the climate.

These results align with an earlier paper published by EDF scientists in 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), but reach these conclusions through updated and more detailed data, as well as analysis tackling a wider scope of vehicle sizes, engine technologies, and fuel types.

Pathway to Positive Climate Benefits

By examining a range of assumptions, the new study finds there are indeed pathways for heavy duty natural gas vehicles to achieve climate benefits, provided methane emissions across the value chain are reduced both upstream and at the vehicle level.

Improvements in fuel efficiency could help ensure these vehicles are climate friendly. Today’s natural gas truck engines are typically five to fifteen percent less efficient than diesel engines. Consuming more fuel for each mile traveled reduces the relative CO2 savings. If that efficiency gap can be closed, natural gas trucks will fare that much better compared to diesel.

Upcoming Policy Opportunities

While emissions in the natural gas value chain are a serious challenge, they also represent an opportunity to achieve significant, cost-effective reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions. Several policy mechanisms are in play that could improve the climate prospects of natural gas trucks. These include recently announced federal upstream methane regulations and upcoming federal fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks.

More information is needed to estimate with confidence the current climate footprint of trucks, and to get a better understanding of methane loss along the natural gas value chain. Significant research is underway to update estimates of methane emissions across the U.S. natural gas system, including the ambitious scientific research effort to publish 16 field studies launched by EDF and its partners.

Advancing Understanding

The paper released today is distinct from this ongoing effort and does not use any data from those studies, but it serves complementary purposes: First, it emphasizes the importance of gathering more and better data on methane loss; second, one of its major contributions is the various “sensitivity analyses” it presents.

These ranges of potential results are designed to understand the implications of changing underlying assumptions about methane emissions and efficiency. Our new paper creates a framework to evaluate the climate impacts of a fuel switch to natural gas in the trucking sector as we gain better data on the magnitude and distribution of leakage and as both leakage and vehicle efficiency evolve due to policy changes and market dynamics.

Policymakers wishing to address climate change should use caution before promoting fuel switching to natural gas in the trucking sector until we are more certain about the magnitude of methane loss and have acted sufficiently to reduce emissions and improve natural gas engine efficiency.

For more detail on the paper released today, please see our Frequently Asked Questions.

Image Source: Flickr/TruckPR

By EDF Blogs

Every year, SXSW Eco – one of the most high-profile environmental conferences – selects its programming based on votes from the public. This means anyone, regardless of whether you submitted a panel, can cast a vote.

This year, seven experts from Environmental Defense Fund are featured on dynamic panels that cover everything from solar equity and new utility business models to innovative building efficiency programs and the threat of methane pollution. To make sure EDF and energy-related programming is represented at the conference in Austin, TX this October, we are asking our readers to please vote for your favorite EDF panels and presentations.

How to vote

To vote, you will need to login or create a PanelPicker account here: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com. The voting is simple, just give a session a “Thumbs Up” or “Thumbs Down,” leave some comments, and move on. This whole process will take you all of one minute.

Voting ends this Friday, May 22nd, so please help us spread the word by sharing this post with your friends via email and social media (you can also retweet us from @EDFEnergyEX)!

EDF panel and presentation submissions

The Revolution Will Be Solarized

The solar revolution is here, but will it truly empower all people? The U.S. now has enough installed solar to power more than four million homes, and has added more solar capacity in the past two years than in the previous 30 years combined. But who is really benefiting from this boom? What about renters, low-income communities, and communities of color, who disproportionately bare the pollution burden from today's electricity system? Recent misinformation campaigns from the utility and fossil fuel industries would have us believe solar energy is hurting low-income communities and communities of color. This panel will explore tough question about equity, affordability, and access to solar power – and highlight real-world examples of policy solutions and pilot programs attempting to bring solar power to the people.

 Speakers

• Jorge Madrid, Environmental Defense Fund
• Brentin Mock, The Atlantic
• Anya Schoolman, Community Power Network
• Jaqui Patterson, NAACP
• Michael Kadish, GRID Alternatives

Back to the Future: Power Grid Edition

Illinois is proving electric utilities don’t need time travel to move its power grid light-years into the future. Since 2011, Illinois’ largest utilities, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren Illinois, have started rolling out some five million smart meters and making more than $2 billion of smart grid investments. EDF and Citizen’s Utility Board are working with ComEd and Ameren to ensure customers not only get meters, but also a cheaper and cleaner grid, with ground-breaking initiatives, such as community solar farms, easy access to energy data, a suite of alternative electricity pricing plans, microgrid development, voltage optimization, and greenhouse gas reductions. Discover for yourself how Illinois’ model of using information and data from meters and other equipment creates new business models and benefits to residents, small businesses, manufacturers, and commercial real estate. Illinois is setting a standard for a smarter, cleaner, and healthier energy.

Speakers

• Dick Munson, Environmental Defense Fund
• Andrew Barbeau, Accelerate Group
• David Kolata, Citizens Utility Board

Innovating to Fight the Other Big Climate Threat

Natural gas use across the United States has jumped– but leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and the main component in natural gas, can undermine gas’ potential climate benefits over coal. To help the oil and gas industry faster detect, and ultimately reduce, methane emissions, Environmental Defense Fund and a diverse set of partners drew on innovation competitions to develop the Methane Detectors Challenge, an initiative to commercialize next-generation detection sensor systems equipped with big data capabilities. Attendees will learn how the Challenge has marshaled the expertise and buying power of seven leading oil and gas companies and the talent of a diverse international set of technology development teams. The goal is to not only help find and fix leaks with the speed we expect in the digital age – improving air quality, and keeping companies’ supply in the pipeline and out of the atmosphere – but also to catalyze a new market for detection equipment.

 Speakers

• Ben Ratner, Environmental Defense Fund
• Dirk Richter, Quanta3
• Roy Hartstein, Southwestern Energy
• Jason Gu, SenSevere

Water Management 2.0 – Policy, Tech and Education

The 21st century has ushered an era where city planners in New York, Sacramento and Singapore must consider the implications of rising sea levels, extended droughts and 100-year storms in their long-term development. With California in the throes of a fierce drought and the pain of Australia’s 'Big Dry' still lingering in recent memory, Texas and the City of Austin are taking aggressive measures to prepare for extended periods of drought. This panel will explore the political, technical and educational investments Texas has and must take to prevent similar consequences. Veteran environmental columnist Todd Woody will return to SXSW as moderator and lead the conversation among panelists Mark Jordan from Austin Water, Kate Zerrener from the Environmental Defense Fund, Pete Brostrum from California’s Department of Water Resources and Joe Ball from Itron Technologies.

 Speakers

• Kate Zerrener, Environmental Defense Fund
• Mark Jordan, Austin Water
• Peter Brostrom, California Department of Water Resources
• Joe Ball, Itron

Innovative Building Operators Help Chicago

In June 2012, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that the City of Chicago would join the Obama Administration’s Better Buildings Challenge, and called on local business owners to help reduce energy use by 20 percent across nearly 24 million square feet of public and private building space by 2017. JLL, owner of 77 West Wacker Street, a Class A building, and Urban Innovations, operator of 11 Chicago Class B buildings, stepped up to the Mayor’s call, and together reduced their energy usage by nearly 3 million kilowatt hours. And, both saved considerable money in the process. Environmental Defense Fund helped guide those results by embedding EDF Climate Corps fellows in each organization to help identify, plan and implement those energy reduction programs. In this session, attendees will hear directly from JLL and Urban Innovations about their journeys to innovate and lead the field in energy management, and how EDF Climate Corps is scaling their solutions across the U.S.

 Speakers

• Victoria Mills, Environmental Defense Fund
• Myrna Coronado-Brookover, JLL
• Alrieda Green, Urban Innovations

The New Utility Business Model

The business model for electric utilities is rapidly changing. Historically, utilities earned revenues based on how much money they spent. The more money they spent on power plants and other infrastructure, the more money they earned for their shareholders. This business model is now changing in several states, where utilities will earn revenues by meeting performance objectives. These objectives will be tied to basic goals such as providing reliable service and customer satisfaction, but will also include clean energy objectives – such as adding more wind and solar to the grid and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This session will review the latest developments in this area.

Speakers

• John Finnigan, Environmental Defense Fund

Solar Energy is On the Rise

Solar energy is making great strides in the U.S. There are two basic forms – large scale solar power plants covering several acres, and the solar panels you can install on your roof. This session will discuss the current state of affairs with both forms of solar – how does the cost compare with other forms of energy? What are the benefits? Why are customers turning to solar energy? What parts of the country have been most successful in adopting solar energy? What changes do we need to add more solar energy?

 Speakers

• John Finnigan, Environmental Defense Fund

 

Image source: Flickr, Alan Cleaver

By Tim O'Connor

A great thing happened today for the environment and people of California. On the very day we released new maps measuring methane leaking from natural gas lines under Los Angeles-area streets, the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) announced they would begin publishing their own maps showing the locations of leaks they find on their system.

It is a positive move that brings the company a big step closer to complying with the California law requiring them to publish not only the whereabouts of known leaks, but also the amount of methane escaping (which their newly announced maps do not). The public has a right to know where and how much harmful air pollution is being emitted by SoCalGas and any other company in California.

It is precisely the ability to accurately measure this leak rate quickly and cost effectively that makes Environmental Defense Fund’s mapping project so important for the natural gas utility industry, and it is the reason we have spent nearly three years working with Google Earth Outreach and researchers at the University of Colorado to pilot this important technology (which we plan to make available on an open source basis).

Methane is a potent climate pollutant, packing 84 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. That means it is both a serious challenge, and a major opportunity to make a big dent in our total greenhouse emissions quickly. It’s also an issue that has mostly been ignored until recently. But now California is leading the country in requiring gas utilities to both measure and reduce the amount of methane they are leaking.

We commend SoCalGas for taking their first big step on the road to a solution.

This post originally appeared on the EDF blog California Dream 2.0.

By Ben Ratner

Too much ink has been spilled on the anti-climate furor of the Koch brothers. If we lose on climate, it won’t be because of the Koch brothers or those like them.

It will be because too many potential climate champions from the business community stood quietly on the sidelines at a time when America has attractive policy opportunities to drive down economy-endangering greenhouse gas emissions.

Corporate executives have the savvy to understand the climate change problem and opportunity. They have the incentive to tackle it through smart policy, and the clout to influence politicians and policy makers. Perhaps most importantly, they can inspire each other.

And today, they have a chance to do what they do best: lead. Corporate climate leadership has nothing to do with partisanship – it’s ultimately about business acumen.

For starters, here are three immediate opportunities smart companies won’t want to miss.

1. Clean Power Plan: Will spur new jobs and investments.

The Obama administration’s plan will cut emissions from coal plants by 30 percent by 2030. This is expected to trigger a wave of clean energy investment and job creation. It will also seize energy efficiency opportunities and take advantage of America’s abundant and economic supply of natural gas.

Every company with an energy-related greenhouse gas footprint has something to gain from a cleaner power mix. Each one of those companies therefore has a stake in theClean Power Plan.

Google and Starbucks – two large and profitable American companies by any standard – are among more than 200 businesses that have already stepped up to voice their support.

Who will follow them?

2. First-ever methane rules: Will make industry more efficient.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming methane emission rules are another opportunity for business leaders to weigh in.

The rules are part of a White House plan that seeks to reducemethane emissions – a major contributor to global warming and resource waste – by almost half in the oil and gas industry.

Globally, an estimated 3.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas leaks from the sector each year. This wasted resource would be worth about $30 billion in new revenue if sold on the energy market.

Some oil and gas companies that have already taken positive steps include Anadarko, Noble and Encana, which helped develop the nation’s first sensible methane rules in Colorado.

Engaging to support strong and sensible national standards isa good next step for companies in this space. And for others with a stake in cleaning up natural gas, such as chemical companies, and manufacturers and users of natural gas vehicles.

3. New truck standards: Can help companies cut expenses and emissions.

New clean truck standards are scheduled for release this summer. Consumer goods companies and other manufacturers stand to see significant dollar and emissionsavings as they move their goods to market.

Cummins, Wabash, Fed Ex, Con-Way, Eaton and Waste Management are among those that applauded the decision to move forward with new standards.

Putting capitalism to work

American business leadership is still the global standard and will remain so if it adds climate policy to its to-do list. While it will take time to build the bi-partisan momentum for comprehensive national climate legislation, there are immediate opportunities to move the needle.

Which companies will take the field?

Image source: Flickr/Don McCullough

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By Tim O'Connor

Methane from oil and gas operations is a serious climate risk, but also a ripe opportunity to make a huge dent in overall greenhouse emissions. This past week, one state took a big, and long-awaited, step to address the challenge.

While we wait for the Environmental Protection Agency to release draft federal methane rules this summer, the California Air Resources Board has just released a draft of the most comprehensive and forward thinking regulations to cut methane pollution from oil and gas yet.

While the April 22 proposal still needs work – such as in the area of how often equipment needs to be inspected and how best to reduce venting associated with well unloading and other activities – it’s a big and fundamental step in the right direction. It has the potential to deliver what the rest of the country needs – comprehensive equipment standards on new and existing sources for both oil and gas operations, and enhanced leak detection and repair requirements across the methane value chain.

But the benefits will be felt closest to home first.

California is the third largest oil-producing state. According to a statewide survey a few years ago, there are over 50,000 active oil wells, 1,300 gas extraction wells, and 370 gas storage wells with over  7.7 million pieces of equipment peppered across the California landscape – many of which may be leaking methane right now. Through the seven new strategies being proposed, CARB modeling predicts over 500,000 tons of greenhouse gas pollution reductions and major decreases in hazardous air pollution, mostly in the state’s most overburdened air basins.

Proposed Category for Control Reductions  (tons CO2e) Uncontrolled Oil and Water Separators and Tanks 252,000 Reciprocating Compressors 143,000 Centrifugal Compressors 10,700 Pneumatic Devices and Pumps 124,000 Recirculation Tanks for Well Stimulation 24,400 Liquids Unloading 350 Components under New LDAR Program 1,200 TOTAL 556,000

As we've written elsewhere, the consulting firm ICF found that major methane reductions from oil and gas operations can be achieved for less than one penny per 1,000 cubic feet of produced natural gas. Reducing methane emissions not only has a climate benefit, it benefits industry and consumers by eliminating waste of a natural resource and by keeping a valuable commodity in the pipeline.

Of course, the release of a draft regulation is just the start of a regulatory process that will likely take six months to a year to complete, and likely won’t take effect until 2017. But, seeing as how the U.S. oil and gas industry is responsible for 14 percent of U.S. VOC emissions (a principal smog-forming gas) and 57,000 metric tons of hazardous air pollutants, if California’s action stimulates action elsewhere, it can deliver outsized results much, much sooner and on a larger scale.

Moving Forward

In terms of next steps, California should continue its reputation as an environmental champion and finalize this rule with certain necessary improvements – proceeding with a rigorous, forward thinking regulation that leads the way in the oil and gas sector. With immediate action on methane emissions, the state can help address a critical missing piece in the climate change mitigation strategy across the U.S. and in the Golden State.

This post originally appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

By Drew Nelson

When countries meet in Paris for the United Nations climate talks later this year, their representatives will come armed with the best data, research and ideas on how to reach a climate agreement and avert catastrophic climate change.

But a new report from Rhodium Group, commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund, shows that countries have so far been leaving a huge opportunity on the table: methane emissions from oil and gas operations.

 

Cutting methane can have a dramatic impact

The report shows that the global oil and natural gas industry is leaking a huge amount of climate-harming methane every year. When released into the atmosphere, this methane has the same climate impact as does 40 percent of carbon dioxide from the world’s coal combustion.

Cutting oil and gas methane pollution can have an immediate and dramatic climate benefit. If we cut such pollution in half globally, the effect over the next 20 years would be equivalent to eliminating all carbon dioxide from coal burning in India and the European Union.

As a 2014 report from ICF International found, these cuts are both achievable and cost-effective.

$30 billion in untapped revenue

In addition to the climate benefits of slashing methane pollution from the oil and gas sector, methane leaks waste an estimated 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If sold to consumers, it would generate about $30 billion dollars in new revenue for the sector.

In fact, if this leaked gas came from a producing country, that nation would be the 7th largest gas producer in the world – on par with Norway. If captured, this leaked gas would boost supplies and increase energy security worldwide .

A growing problem

We now know that oil and gas methane pollution is an issue we cannot ignore. Unless countries and companies alike take bold steps to curtail them, these global emissions will increase by nearly 25 percent by 2030.

Because of methane’s significant climate impact, this increase in methane emissions would have an additional climate impact equal to all of Poland’s annual greenhouse gas emissions today.

Countries can set achievable methane goals

Today, awareness of the methane issue is growing – and more people are taking notice of its impact on short-term warming, and of the fact that methane emissions can be reduced in a cost-effective way.

The Unites States recently announced an oil and gas methane reduction goal. Mexico has included methane pollution in its emissions reductions commitments given to the U.N. ahead of the Paris talks. And several governments, seven companies (BG, ENI, Pemex, PTT, Statoil, Southwestern and Total) and EDF teamed up to launch the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership.

Reducing methane pollution is not only a significant tool to address climate change; it’s also critical for ensuring that natural gas plays a credible role in the planet’s transition to a lower carbon energy system.

With such a big opportunity within easy grasp, all countries and companies should put reducing oil and natural gas methane pollution on their to-do list for the Paris climate talks this year.

This post originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog

Image source: Flickr/Adam Cohn 

By Mark Brownstein

Methane emissions from the US oil and gas sector increased, according to new data finalized today by the Environmental Protection Agency. Sadly, the figures come as no surprise, based on preliminary numbers and plenty of other observations, both scientific and anecdotal.  No surprise unless you’re part of the industry’s public relations machine, which keeps insisting that up means down.

What is legitimately surprising is that this problem continues in spite of the many simple, proven and cost effective ways there are to fix it. And therein lies opportunity.

EPA’s latest inventory estimates that in 2013, the oil and gas industry released more than 7.3 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere from their operations—a three percent increase over 2012—making it largest industrial source of methane pollution. That’s enough to meet the needs of 5 million households, and packs the same climate punch over the first 20 years as the CO2 emissions from more than 160 coal-fired power plants.

What’s more, new EPA figures almost are certainly an understatement. A 2014 study by Stanford University found that the agency may be systematically underestimating emissions.

The oil gas industry has been quick to tout their small victories in minimizing methane pollution, but there’s always a catch. In fact, according to EPA today, the only sector of the natural gas supply chain where emissions have decreased is the production phase. What industry is not as quick to point out is that those emissions dropped as a direct result of EPA regulations of hydraulically fractured gas wells.

Lobbyists will assure us that emissions are under control, and that voluntary efforts are sufficient to help us turn the corner on emissions. But in fact, the inventory itself shows a decline in voluntary emission reductions.

Methane is a serious challenge – responsible for approximately 25 percent of the warming we currently experience, and trapping 84 times more heat over 20 years than carbon dioxide. But it’s also a huge opportunity to make a major dent in overall greenhouse emissions, quickly and at reasonable cost. It’s time we started taking advantage.

 

By Eric Pooley

On April 8, InsideClimate News published an in-depth story about Environmental Defense Fund’s groundbreaking work to measure emissions of methane.

While we don’t agree with everything in the story, we’re glad it recognizes the scope, ambition and scientific integrity of our work. As InsideClimate News concludes:

Environmental groups almost never take on scientific research efforts. Investigations on this scale are normally organized by the federal government or the National Academy of Sciences. Coordinating what’s become an $18 million series of 16 studies by more than 100 researchers has turned EDF into a heavyweight on the science of methane pollution.

The project’s findings will influence government policy concerning the $292 billion-a-year U.S. oil and gas extraction industry and the regulation of fracking…[And] environmentalists acknowledge that EDF has managed to pass some of the nation’s strictest regulations where others have failed.

InsideClimate News interviewed 40 scientists, activists, academics and industry representatives – more than half of whom aren’t involved with the EDF research. This group included 15 methane researchers. None of them said they thought the industry was manipulating EDF’s research results or pressuring scientists to change their data.

But the story also gets some important things wrong, on issues the reporters never asked us about.

We’d like to offer corrections on those points, which we have raised directly with the editors, along with some additional perspective on this important story about methane – a potent greenhouse gas and main component of natural gas.

Correcting the Record

The article says that EDF “generally supports fracking.” This is not accurate. We have never advocated in favor of fracking. Instead, we recognize that fracking is a widespread reality. Rather than trying to draw an untenable line in the ground, EDF has fought hard to protect communities and ecosystems from unacceptable impacts by putting in place strong rules and enforcement. That includes regulation to protect air and water as well as our methane work.

The writers also say that EDF’s position on natural gas is “evolving.” They quote EDF’s Mark Brownstein in 2012, saying that “On balance, we think substituting natural gas for coal can provide net environmental value, including a lower greenhouse gas footprint.”

This was true then, and it is true now. It does not suggest that natural gas will provide net value, only that it can – provided both local impacts and methane emissions are controlled. As we have always said, that is a very big if. Our position has not “evolved” on any of that, and it was bad form for the reporters to make such an assertion without letting us respond to it.

Finally, the article suggests that EDF supports natural gas as a “bridge fuel.” That is not a term we use or a concept we endorse.

The fact is, our society is on a carbon highway and needs to get off of it. With the right policies, natural gas can help provide an exit ramp, reducing our current emissions and helping to accelerate the transition to truly clean, renewable sources of electricity – the destination EDF believes we need to reach as quickly as possible. That’s why clean energy (not natural gas) is the fastest-growing program at EDF.

Our commitment to transparency and sound science

Energy companies were involved in this research effort, making their facilities available to the scientific study teams and, in some cases, providing financial support to the academic institutions conducting the work (though never to EDF; we do not accept contributions from energy companies).

InsideClimate News and others seem puzzled that organizations that don’t necessarily share the same policy goals might still have a common stake in gathering honest and impartial data. It’s a measure of how polarized the energy debate has become that an attempt to reach agreement on basic facts is seen as suspect.

For almost 50 years, EDF has built our advocacy on strongest possible scientific foundations. We know that not everyone is always going to agree with our views, but our allies and adversaries alike know that we come by our positions honestly, rigorously, and with the utmost transparency.

This is particularly important given the atmosphere of mistrust surrounding natural gas development. That is why we have been clear from the start about the funding for this research, our relationships with industry and others collaborating on the work, and the rigorous review process to which all of the findings are subject before publication.

We undertook our methane research determined to go wherever the data led. We have found some instances where previous leakage estimates were too high – either because science got better, or the technology and operating practices improved, or both. And we have found many where past estimates would prove way too low.

Overall, the picture shows that methane is a huge and growing problem, that strong state and federal regulation is necessary to control it, and that there are cost-effective opportunities to reap major emission reductions.

We do not expect, nor have we ever suggested, that this research will be the last word on the subject. To the contrary, it is our hope and expectation that others will build on these findings, validating them where they can and challenging them when appropriate.

That, of course, is the essence of the scientific method, and we’re committed to it.

This post originally appeared on EDF Voices.

By Andy Darrell

Last month, I attended the Vail Global Energy Forum in Colorado. Billed as a “mini-Davos” of energy (studiously ignoring the Aspen crowd a few hours down the highway), that moniker may have felt aspirational when the conference launched three years ago. But, this year it paid off: momentum for frank dialogue and global innovation is building on the slopes of the Vail Valley.

Here’s my take on how the clean air of the mountains cuts through the hot air of energy debates to illuminate practical, actionable ideas.

Three big ideas drove the conference:

1. North American energy independence

Mexico, the United States, and Canada could, together, innovate their way to an energy marketplace that weakens dependence on overseas imports, scales up clean energy solutions, and charts a path to low-carbon prosperity. At times, the discussion was framed by the rise of unconventional oil and gas exploration (yes, “fracking”), collaboration around pipelines (yes, “Keystone”), and whether these could disrupt traditional geopolitical frames.

On gas, climate was there to drive the conversation too, rooted in Colorado’s leadership. At last year’s Vail Forum, Governor Hickenlooper, Fred Krupp (disclaimer: my EDF boss), and a handful of CEOs from energy companies took the stage to announce a first-in-the-nation set of new laws to cut methane and air pollution from oil and gas production. If fracking is to be a cornerstone of North American energy independence, industry and political leaders must lock in Colorado’s solution at a continental scale. Colorado’s air rules show that practical solutions are doable.

1. Clean electricity and its potential both in North America and globally

Consider these trends: Mexico just revolutionized its energy laws, opening doors to international collaboration and private companies to sell energy to – and add capacity to – its electricity grid. California and Quebec have launched and linked economy-wide cap-and-trade programs, and other jurisdictions, including Ontario, Canada’s largest province, are talking about joining the club. And, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, ideas are brewing to finance energy efficiency and clean tech at larger scales.

1. New York is emerging as a “lighthouse” of market-based reforms

Richard Kauffman, once of Goldman Sachs and now the “energy czar” of New York State, quietly took the stage in rumpled corduroys and a country shirt amid the crisp suits of energy execs.

And, he laid out New York’s revolutionary plan to reinvent the rules of the energy game, clearing away thickets of regulation that stand in the way. It’s looking at new business models for utilities, giving them reason to welcome solar, efficiency, and other technology innovations. And, its new green bank will help get clean tech deployed in communities statewide with the help of public and private capital. If New York succeeds, it can be a model for the continent.

I’m thrilled to be part of at least one take-away from the Forum that builds on the relationships forged there. Environmental Defense Fund, Stanford University, and Richard Kauffman’s team in New York are going to collaborate on solving key challenges for low-carbon electricity. We’ve already had follow-up conversations to identify the problems and get to work – in time to make a difference in real-world regulatory decisions.

With this kind of momentum, I’ll be back in Vail next year – and not just for the skiing. Maybe one day we’ll be talking about Davos as the “mini Vail” of clean energy!

By N. Jonathan Peress

The most important takeaway from a study released today by Washington State University (WSU) is that despite improvements, large amounts of methane continue to leak from the nation's local natural gas systems. Because methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, these yearly emissions are comparable to the CO2 from as many as 19 coal-fired power plants.

The estimated value of the gas escaping each year, by the way, is up to $195 million.

Although these figures represent a major ongoing challenge for gas utilities, they do reflect substantial improvement over the past two decades, thanks to a combination of effort and investment by utilities, along with a series of both state and federal policy changes enacted since 1992.

The new findings reinforce the fact that when regulators and companies both set their minds to fixing a problem, they can get some pretty good results. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a particularly powerful climate warmer – 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it is released to the atmosphere.

While they remain a serious problem, the ongoing utility emissions also represent an important opportunity for companies and regulators to make a big dent in greenhouse pollution. EDF believes the study underscores three major areas where improvement is necessary:

• Utility efforts and state requirements to replace leaky pipes and repair leaks are working; these efforts need to be accelerated and expanded to additional utilities and states;

• Regular surveying and reporting by utilities should include not just finding leaks, but also measuring the amount of methane escaping into the atmosphere;

• A small number of leaks account for a disproportionally large share of overall emissions and among specific utilities, both of which suggest that using average emission rates does not accurately reflect the amount of methane any one utility or leak emits.

New standards and better practices

The Washington State analysis finds that emissions are between 36 and 70 percent lower than estimates based on widely used assumptions drawn from research in the 1990s. Since then, utilities have invested heavily in replacing leak-prone hardware and infrastructure as both state and federal regulators have intensified their focus on plugging holes in local distribution systems.

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) introduced extensive new planning and monitoring rules for utilities beginning in the late 1990s, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued greenhouse gas measurement and reporting requirements for utilities in 2011, which the study authors have credited as having a big effect on the lower emissions seen in the new results. EPA also established rules in 2011 requiring gas utilities to measure and report methane leaks from their metering and pressure regulating (M&R) stations.

About 40 states have replacement programs for leak-prone utility pipes, and 15 require leak classification and repair timelines. Pipeline explosions in California, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey have prompted more oversight, particularly where aging infrastructure is involved. In addition, state regulators have increasingly been requiring utilities to reduce ratepayer cost for gas lost from their systems.

Pinpointing problem areas

The WSU study shows major variations by region and type of pipes (which is often related to the age of a particular system). More than thirty percent of leaks reported by utilities participating in the study were in the northeast. Fully 70 percent of emissions reported by northeast utilities – and almost half of total U.S. emissions – were from old cast iron and unprotected steel pipes.

As EDF’s leak mapping project has shown, areas with large amounts of old cast iron or bare steel pipes often have more and bigger leaks. According to PHMSA, cast iron and unprotected steel represent less than 10 percent of the nation’s utility distribution system pipeline miles – mostly in the Northeast – but are responsible for 46 percent of the total emissions from those systems.

Investment pays off

Progress reflected in the WSU results proves that efforts by utilities, as well as both state and federal regulators, to make sure that pipes are inspected, leaks are found, and leak-prone pipe is replaced are paying off. Utilities throughout the country, including nearly all of the 13 companies included in the study, have undertaken programs to replace leak-prone pipe and customer meters, after receiving authorization from the state public utility commissions that oversee their operations.

However, while it’s true that according to federal records local gas utilities have replaced close to 40 percent of the leakiest pipes that were in service in 1990, 60 percent of these old pipes are still in the ground, and still leaking. And at today’s rate, it will take at least another 50 years to replace them.

Size matters

Current safety regulations also don’t require utilities to measure the size of their leaks. That means even some large leaks are allowed to emit methane for years on end, provided they’re away from crowded areas. In fact, the study found that just three large leaks, of the more than 230 measured from pipes, accounted for 50 percent of the total measured methane.

Until recently, however, it also hasn’t been easy to assess which leaks are emitting the most natural gas. Fortunately, the technology for finding and measuring leaks is rapidly improving, making it easier to prioritize where to focus resources to get the best results. For example, EDF is currently working with utilities including Con Edison, National Grid, and Public Service Electric & Gas to accelerate the development and commercialization of lower-cost technologies to size up underground leaks.

New and better opportunities to fix the problem

Our collective understanding of methane leaks and the availability of low cost technology has reached the point where utilities should not be just counting their methane leaks, but also quantifying and reporting them on an a regular basis so we know much gas is being wasted and what it’s doing to our climate and our air.

By Mark Brownstein

Science is a process of asserting a hypothesis, collecting data, presenting results, and then having those data and results tested by other researchers. Peer-reviewed journals routinely allow for comments on papers and responses by the authors precisely in order to ensure that knowledge evolves and the dialogue is part of the public scientific record.

People paying close attention to the growing body of research on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry may note of a recent exchange in Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) between Mr. Touché Howard and a team of scientists lead by Dr. David Allen of the University of Texas. The studies by Allen et al. are among of a group of 16 studies on methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain being coordinated by Environmental Defense Fund.

ES&T published comments by Mr. Howard, who has worked on methane emissions quantification, regarding the two studies (here and here) authored by Dr. Allen et al. Howard cites several possible complications with the data used in the UT research, which he contends could have caused researchers to underestimate methane emissions: 1) Faulty flow meters; 2) Sensor failure in their instrument; and 3) Potential reset of malfunctioning pneumatic controllers when installing flow meters.

In a reply comment, Dr. Allen and his coauthors outline why they believe Mr. Howard’s concerns are misplaced.

• Regarding potentially faulty meters, Dr. Allen’s team tested the equipment – in the lab, in the field, and by cross checking data – and found no errors.

• Regarding possible sensor failure due to chemical deposits during the testing process, Dr. Allen et al did find issues with one of three pieces of equipment, but not with the other two, and made corrections in the data from the one affected unit.

• Regarding the possible resetting of the operating equipment they were testing, Dr. Allen et al say that researchers on site observed no such action and say there is no evidence to suggest the problem occurred.

EDF is pleased to see that the methane work we’ve sponsored is receiving scrutiny by the research community, and we are equally pleased that the lead researchers we’ve chosen to work with are taking these critiques seriously and are taking the necessary steps to recheck their work. We believe good environmental policy begins with good science, and are glad to see the scientific process working here.

 

By Mark Brownstein

The Environmental Protection Agency just released the draft of its yearly greenhouse gas emissions inventory. It shows in no uncertain terms that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are going in the wrong direction: Up.

Emissions from this overall sector are up two percent in 2013, which includes emissions from oil (petroleum) systems which were at their highest levels ever since estimates began in 1990 – and up 68 percent since 2005. Emissions from natural gas processing, where impurities are removed to produce pipeline quality gas, are up 38 percent since 2005. From transmission and storage: Up 11 percent.

Yet the industry’s public relations machine says emissions are falling. So what’s the disconnect?

The inventory did find that emissions from the natural gas production category, which includes well sites and the system transporting gas to processing plants, decreased from 2012-2013, due to fewer wells being drilled and an increase in the share that use “green completions” as required by a 2012 EPA rule. (The fact that the EPA’s requirements led to a decrease underscores the importance of regulation in addressing methane emissions, by the way.)  But by focusing on only one segment of the oil and gas supply chain the oil and gas lobby are only giving you part of the story.

The bottom line is clear: Emissions for many key links in the supply chain have gone up, not down, and in some cases they have increased quite dramatically. The fact remains, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are still too large and widespread .

We have the low cost technology at our disposal right now to fix this problem.

Cutting emissions in half would save our nation’s energy economy nearly $1 billion a year in wasted product, and cut the 20-year climate pollution equivalent of 90 coal-fired power plants. What’s more, a study by ICF International recently estimated that companies could cut methane emissions by 40 percent or more for about one third of one percent of the price of the gas they’re selling.

The case for action couldn’t be more clear.

Photo Source: Wikipedia

By Mark Brownstein

In the summer of 2013, researchers aboard a four-engine P-3 Orion aircraft – a variant of the plane used by the U.S. Navy to track submarines – flew over three of the nation’s biggest shale gas regions, taking measurements that would allow them to estimate the amount of methane leaking from the production fields below.

The team from University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory published their findings this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, adding new depth to our understanding of methane leaks, but also underscoring important questions.

Comparing their readings to production figures for the region, they estimated a total leak rate of 0.18 to 2.8 percent, which is at the low end of the range of findings in other research. For some, this may be cause for celebration.

But don’t pop the champagne corks just yet.

The study is just one snapshot – data from one afternoon, on one day, in each of the three places.

The study, which looked at gas fields in Louisiana and Texas, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania, offers a one-day snapshot of what was happening on the ground, as measured from the air. A one-day survey can produce results with a significant range of uncertainty.

For example, another flyover study of Utah’s Uinta Basin, also led by researchers from NOAA and CIRES, showed leak rates ranging from 6.2 to 11.7 percent, and an additional flyover of the Denver-Julesburg Basin, led by NOAA, found leak rates in the range of 2.5 to 5.7 percent. This is just the case with the new study published today, which recorded methane leak rates from 0.18 to 0.41 percent in the Marcellus Shale to 1.0 to 2.8 percent in the Fayetteville.

More robust studies that cover longer time periods actually suggest methane emissions are often higher than previously estimated. EDF’s own studies – including two released last week looking at the transmission and storage and gathering and processing sectors of the oil and gas industry – have repeatedly shown that random leaks and malfunctions are a major source of emissions.

Because these events are random, a one-day overflight will not give a full picture of emissions coming from a basin over a day, a month, or a year. What is needed is regular and ongoing monitoring.

This is why major oil and gas producing states like Colorado, Ohio, and Wyoming are instituting ongoing leak detection and repair programs and why states like Pennsylvania can continue to move the ball forward and show leadership by enacting strong methane regulations. The federal government has also recognized the importance of these measures, with the White House announcing in January a goal of reducing methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025. The rules EPA will propose this summer to achieve that goal will likely include efforts to enhance emissions measurement and leak repair.

Leading companies recognize the need for such programs, too, with many joining us in the Methane Detectors Challenge, a project to identify and deploy technology capable of providing continuous emissions monitoring at sites.

Methane has the potential to undermine the climate benefits natural gas provides over other fossil fuels. If natural gas is to truly provide a cleaner energy alternative to get us on a path toward a non-carbon future, it must be produced responsibly, with strong regulations that require leak detection and repair to prevent harmful methane emissions.

The CIRES study is just one in what is becoming a large body of scientific analysis of methane emissions and doesn’t tell the full story. Continuing research by EDF and others will help us understand the bigger picture of these emissions and provide policymakers and industry leaders with the information they need to help prevent them.

Photo Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

By Peter Zalzal

Scientists David Lyon and Ramón Alvarez contributed to this post

Two studies released today in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology provide new insights into methane emissions from significant sources in the oil and natural gas sector and underscore the urgency of taking action to address pollution from these sources. The studies—focusing on the gathering and processing segment and the transmission and storage segment—were led by researchers at Colorado State and Carnegie Mellon universities and Aerodyne Research, and included collaboration with EDF and companies in each of these segments.

In the gathering and processing study, researchers measured 130 gathering and processing facilities, finding emissions at gathering facilities ranging from 0.6 to 600 standard cubic feet of methane leaking per minute (scf/m). For the transmission and storage study, a different team led by CSU also collected extensive on-site and downwind measurements of methane at 45 transmission and storage sites. Site-level methane measurements ranged from 2 to 880 scf/m, with an average measurement of 70 scf/m. Of all the facilities measured for these studies, data suggests the natural gas emitted was worth about $25 million and had the 20-year climate impact equal to the emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles.

The Administration has recently announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025—actions that will help prevent this needless waste. The announcement indicates that new standards will build on the technologies EPA evaluated in a set of five peer-reviewed, technical white papers (including technologies to find and fix leaks and to address emissions from compressors).

The studies released today underscore the importance of strong federal actions to reduce emissions from sources in the gathering and processing and transmission and storage segments.  In particular, measurements from both of the studies show that equipment leaks are an important source of emissions that can be addressed.  Here are some of the findings:

• The gathering and processing study found substantial venting from liquids storage tanks at approximately 20 percent of sampled gathering facilities. Emission rates at these facilities were on average four times higher than rates observed at other facilities, and at some of these sites with substantial emissions, the authors found that company representatives made adjustments resulting in immediate reductions in emissions.

• Researchers found that processing plants leaked at much lower rates than gathering facilities, attributing this discrepancy in part to regulations requiring comprehensive leak detection and repair at processing plants.  Moreover, the authors found that 19 of the 25 facilities with the lowest average emission rate were staffed by full time operators.

• In the transmission and storage study, the two sites with very significant emissions were both due to leaks or venting at isolation valves. The study also found that leaks were a major source of emissions across sources, concluding that measured emissions are larger than would be estimated by the emission factors used in EPA’s reporting program.

All of these findings suggest that equipment leaks are an important source of emission and that strong, comprehensive leak detection and repair requirements could help to find and fix these leaks.

The studies also underscore the importance of EPA’s proposed action to strengthen methane reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector (known as Subpart W).  In particular, EPA has proposed to require reporting from sources in the gathering and boosting sector, which is critical because there are thousands of these sources across the country and they are not currently required to measure and report their emissions data to EPA.

It is critical that we address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the two studies released today provide additional insights on several important emission sources. As the administration has announced it will take actions to begin to address methane emissions, we must begin working together to deploy commonsense, highly-cost effective technologies to reduce this pollution and minimize waste—solutions that leading states and companies have deployed and that are urgently needed to ensure a level playing field and protect communities across the country.