The hidden truth behind existing sources (of methane pollution)

Over the past year, the chatter on methane pollution from oil and gas operations has gotten much louder—and that's a good thing. This has been helped along by the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rules in August 2015 to cut methane pollution from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry. Going a step further, Gov. Tom Wolf proposed a four-point plan in January 2016 to curb methane pollution from new and existing sources of oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania. Last month, President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged to work on rules for existing sources of oil and gas methane pollution that would address emissions across the U.S. and Canada.

It's the latter proposals to cut existing sources of oil and gas methane pollution that have caused much consternation among oil and gas producers. These companies, and their lobbyists, are quick to offer sound bites suggesting that they've got this, they are addressing existing sources of pollution voluntarily as it's in their best interest, and that there's no need for what they view as unnecessary and duplicative standards. The short answers, from where we sit, are no, no and no.

Existing sources of oil and gas operations, or the hundreds of thousands of wells, tanks, and compressor stations across the U.S., routinely vent, flare and leak methane. Methane, or CH4, is the primary constituent of natural gas and is a potent greenhouse gas, 86 times more so than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere. This airborne pollution is a public health problem, a waste of our natural resources, and a climate disaster in the making.

When oil and gas producers refer to methane pollution and say they've got this, they're wrong. Methane pollution from existing sources—the bulk of the problem—continue to increase as both Pennsylvania and EPA inventories indicate. Where we have seen some marked declines is in the category of green well completions, or the process of completing a well and readying it for production. It's worth noting that green completions are the one regulated category of methane emissions. Two words: Rules work.

As to voluntary compliance, that's pretty much another fallacy. The EPA's Natural Gas STAR program, which promotes voluntary efforts to rein in oil and gas pollution, struggles with woefully low buy-in from the industry. While Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary John Quigley has singled out Southwestern, Shell, Chevron and CONSOL as large producers that work to cut methane pollution, he also acknowledges that the bulk of small-mid size producers are nowhere near curbing emissions on a voluntary basis. Further, Quigley has stated that methane emission figures in the state are "unrealistically low" because leaks are so common and rarely measured.

Lastly, the suggestion that proposed methane rules for existing sources in Pennsylvania would be unnecessary and duplicative is absurd. Unnecessary? See the two previous paragraphs. Duplicative? Impossible, as Pennsylvania currently has no comprehensive regulatory framework for methane pollution from oil and gas operations. Colorado does, Pennsylvania is working on it, and California recently proposed its own suite of methane rules. We applaud Sec. Quigley's continued call for "best-in-the-nation" standards on methane pollution in PA.

Existing sources of methane pollution are a clear and present danger and must be addressed. The Wolf administration is on its way to doing just that, and 70 percent of Pennsylvanians in a recent poll support the effort. The proposed rules are laudable, and we thank the governor for his bold leadership.

In the weeks and months ahead, PennFuture will provide ample opportunity for citizens of the commonwealth to show their support for rules that cover existing sources of methane pollution. It's time to rein in this harmful pollution and protect our communities. We stand ready to help.

Elaine Labalme is strategic campaigns director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.

Shale & Public Health: A conversation that's not fading away

The League of Women Voters of PA presented its third annual Shale & Public Health Conference in Pittsburgh on November 18, and what's abundantly clear is that the nexus of natural gas drilling and public health in Pennsylvania is a subject of continued interest and debate.

A packed room at the University of Pittsburgh's University Club heard a succession of speakers weigh in on impacts to public health from fracking activity in the Marcellus Shale region ranging from compromised air quality to poor outcomes in newborns.

Dr. Bruce Pitt, department chair, University
of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health

Dr. Bruce Pitt, department chair of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, is participating in leading research to better assess perinatal outcomes for mothers in natural gas drilling regions. He noted that there is a fetal basis for adult diseases that can be traced back to the environmental experiences of the mother. Dr. Pitt's current studies are focused on Washington, Butler and Westmoreland counties in southwestern PA -- a heavily-fracked region -- and are showing an increased incidence of babies that are small for gestational age as well as premature births. Dr. Pitt further noted that we need more studies over "an extended period of time" to better assess the public health impacts of natural gas development, and that a 30-year cycle of study makes sense to allow for a full life cycle of fracking plus longer-forming diseases such as certain cancers.

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project's Dr. Jill Kriesky reiterated the need for a registry on the health impacts of fracking in PA. "We need a [fracking] health registry since researchers have determined that there are public health impacts from this activity," said Kriesky. "The goal is for Pennsylvania to have a robust health registry other states would want to replicate so we have this data across the country."

Dr. Brian Schwartz of Johns Hopkins University is the lead on the much-discussed Geisinger study of health impacts in the fracking regions of northeastern Pennsylvania (NEPA). The Geisinger Health System, which has a large presence in NEPA, has an abundance of well-tracked data, making it a good candidate for study. "By using Geisinger data, we're studying the data of people in [fracking] impacted counties," noted Schwartz, adding that the National Institutes of Health is funding three studies to date that are looking at environmental issues and associated health outcomes. One study's key takeaway: An association between fracking and pre-term birth that is 40 percent higher, "conservatively," in fracking regions. Schwartz's continuing research includes studying asthma exacerbation in drilling regions (the disease's latency is short, making it an ideal vehicle to assess fracking impacts) as well as the study of certain cancers including leukemia and tumors.

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, emeritus dean and
professor, Pitt Graduate School of Public Health

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, the emeritus dean and professor of the Pitt Graduate School of Public Health, touched down in Pittsburgh the night before the conference after spending the fall teaching in Cologne, Germany. Consequently, he honed in on the differences in how fracking is viewed in the U.S. and the EU. While European countries with large shale reserves are keen to drill, their public is largely opposed. That's in stark counterpoint to the U.S., where it's unlikely that we'll completely abandon fossil fuels, thereby making it ever clearer that we have to get drilling right for the sake of public health and the environment. Dr. Goldstein continued: "We have not had the oversight we need in Pennsylvania [on shale gas development]. No one on Gov. Corbett's Marcellus Shale Advisory Committee had a public health background."

It was clear after a full day of speakers and breakout sessions that the conversation in PA on shale gas drilling is fluid. However, much more has been learned, especially about the harmful air pollution related to fracking that is leading to negative health outcomes for Pennsylvanians, including our most vulnerable populations.

Consequently, we should continue to push for the strongest possible rules to address air pollution from natural gas drilling including methane emissions from both new and existing sources. Absent strong protections and strict enforcement, we will not be able to ensure good public health and a safe environment.

Elaine Labalme is strategic campaigns director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

All across the U.S., the talk is about "existing sources"

I had the pleasure, and privilege, of participating in a national methane fly-in on November 4-6 in Washington, D.C. Lest you think we flew methane-spewing drones over our nation's capital, this was actually a collection of 35 advocates from 10 states who met to discuss the issue of harmful methane pollution from the oil and gas sector. We also met with our elected leaders to urge them to support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recently proposed rule to cut methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas sector including oil and gas wells and compressor stations.

The Pennsylvania delegation on its way to a White House meeting, from L-R: Patrice Tomcik, Western Pa. Field Organizer, Moms Clean Air Force; Dr. Evelyn Talbott, University of Pittsburgh; Dr. Marsha Haley, UPMC; Lois Bower-Bjornson, parent-activist, Washington County, Pa.; Matt Walker, Community Outreach Director, Clean Air Council; and Elaine Labalme, Strategic Campaigns Director, PennFuture.

And there's the rub. While we applaud the EPA for taking this important first step -- and it's certainly a step in the right direction -- the bulk of the methane pollution problem is from existing sources of emissions, or oil and gas wells that are here today, not waiting to be drilled tomorrow. By 2018, it is expected that 90 percent of methane pollution in the oil and gas sector will come from existing sources of emissions. In Pennsylvania, the second-largest natural gas producing state in the nation, that numbers thousands upon thousands of wells.

It was validating to hear that environmental advocates from as far away as New Mexico, Montana and North Dakota are just as concerned as we are in Pennsylvania around existing sources of methane pollution. These harmful emissions contribute to negative public health outcomes such as asthma attacks in children and lung and heart disease in seniors and those in under-served communities; are a wasted natural resource in that the $1 billion of methane emissions in 2013 could have heated five million U.S. homes and returned revenue to local communities; and exacerbate climate change as methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas with 86 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere.

Forget the triple bottom line -- methane pollution is a disastrous triad for public health, the economy and the environment.

Here in Pennsylvania, we continue to call on Gov. Tom Wolf to launch a rulemaking for the direct regulation of methane emissions in Pennsylvania from new, modified and existing sources in the oil and gas sector.

In Washington, D.C. last week, our 10-state group of advocates -- which included representatives from labor, faith, parent and environmental groups along with passionate members of the Native American community -- had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the EPA's Bureau of Air Quality and urge the agency to expand its proposed methane rule to cover existing sources as well.

This is a fight we must win, and I was honored to stand alongside like-minded individuals in our nation's capital who were unafraid to sound the call for comprehensive, essential methane rules to protect our citizens and communities.

Elaine Labalme is strategic campaigns director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Why voluntary standards alone will not reduce harmful methane emissions

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently expanded its Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program, a voluntary framework for the reduction of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. While all efforts to reduce the emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, are welcome, it is clear that voluntary standards alone don't work as less than one percent of oil and gas producers are currently participating in the Natural Gas STAR program.

Methane has a global warming potential 84 times greater than carbon in the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere. Along with other co-pollutants, it leads to the formation of ground-level ozone, or smog, a known contributor to asthma attacks and lung and heart disease. These twin climate killers are putting both public health and our environment at risk.

Photo credit: WCN 24/7 via Flickr Creative Commons

The technology exists today to capture and control methane emissions for pennies per thousand cubic feet of gas. What Pennsylvania needs are strong rules to curb methane emissions from both new and existing sources that include a robust leak detection and repair program. While programs that help achieve that goal are welcome, it's clear that voluntary standards alone won't do the trick.

Read more on the need for strong, enforceable standards on methane emissions from the National Wildlife Federation and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

New name, old problem, easy solution for oil and gas drillers

A series of just-published scientific studies are showing methane emissions from oil and gas operations in Texas' sprawling Barnett Shale region to be 50 percent higher than previous estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The problem of methane emissions from this industry is well known, however, this newest research, undertaken by institutions including Duke University, Penn State and Princeton, is now using the term "functional super-emitter" to better classify sites with the greatest level of emissions relative to their production. There has long been concern that diffuse and unpredictable sources are a significant part of the problem, and this has now been credibly established.

What is also well known is that this is a problem with a ready solution: frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR). As noted by Steve Hamburg of the Environmental Defense Fund in a blog post this week, "Frequency is critical...monthly inspections resulted in reducing emissions by 80 percent, while annual inspections reduced emissions by less than half."

The technology is readily available today to cut methane emissions by over 40 percent over five years for a penny per thousand feet of produced gas. However, most companies are not availing themselves of this easy fix.

Here in Pennsylvania, industry lobbyists are pleading for voluntary standards while bemoaning the perceived "operational disruption" of asking drillers to capture and sell more of their own product since methane is the main component of natural gas.

Colorado is currently the only state in the nation that directly regulates methane emissions from oil and gas operations, and insists on frequent LDAR. Pennsylvania, as a longtime oil and gas producing state and ground zero for the burgeoning Marcellus Shale play, clearly needs to follow Colorado's lead. The science is becoming ever clearer -- it is time to act.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.

A Range of violations on shale gas drilling in PA

Natural gas driller Range Resources, which has substantial operations in the Marcellus Shale region, has been fined $8.9 million by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for allowing a "defectively cemented gas well" to leak methane and other substances into groundwater and a stream in Lycoming County. This is the largest fine ever assessed for a shale gas drilling violation in Pennsylvania and is double the then-record $4.1 million fine that Range was assessed in September 2014 for wastewater impoundments that were leaking fracking fluid.

While the driller is appealing the fine to the state's Environmental Hearing Board, DEP Secretary John Quigley is confident that agency action was necessary. "Range Resources has the responsibility to eliminate the gas migration that this poorly constructed well is causing," he said in a statement. "Refusing to make the necessary repairs to protect the public and the environment is not an option."

Photo by Penn State News via Creative Commons

Yep, the top cop is on the beat, which is exactly what the people of Pennsylvania want, and expect, from their environmental regulator. On the flip side is yet another drilling company that refuses to acknowledge its actions with respect to methane leaks that are hurting our air and water.

The citizens of the Commonwealth, as per Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania constitution, are entitled to "...clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment..." Drinking water supplies contaminated by methane leaks are not acceptable. Similarly, choking on air fouled by methane emissions from natural gas drilling operations is not what Pennsylvanians signed on for.

Natural gas drillers will continue to operate with impunity in Pennsylvania until we say they cannot. The civil penalty announced by DEP on June 16 is the right action around an unfortunate set of circumstances.

PennFuture supports proposed revisions to the state's oil and gas laws under Pa. Code Chapter 78 as a vital step toward holding drillers accountable and thereby protecting public health and the environment. We are also calling for the direct regulation of methane emissions in Pennsylvania as is the case in other gas-drilling states. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, should not be leached into our water and spewed into our air by irresponsible operators.

Enforcement of existing regulations is necessary, but the goal is to not have such leaks in the first place. We hope the lessons learned from this and other violations will allow DEP to continually improve our regulations and require best practices industry-wide.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Drexel University researchers: Methane emissions rising in PA's Marcellus Shale region

On May 19, a team of researchers from Drexel University in Philadelphia released findings of a two-month mobile air quality monitoring campaign in the southwest and northeast parts of Pennsylvania where shale gas drilling is taking place. Among the study's more significant findings is that methane emissions were higher than reported in previous studies.

The Drexel team employed a mobile laboratory with sampling instrumentation affixed to the outside and computers inside. They obtained measurements downwind of each drilling region as they did not have direct access to the sites. Measurements were obtained around well pads and compressor stations.

Photo credit: WCN 24/7 via Flickr Creative Commons

This study adds to the growing body of evidence that methane, a potent greenhouse gas with warming potential 84 times greater than carbon in the first 20 years after its release, is leaking into the atmosphere at alarming rates. As temperatures rise, we experience the accelerated formation of ground-level ozone, or smog, that leads to increased asthma attacks and lung and heart disease. Absent action, the specter of increased methane emissions could quickly undo any perceived benefits of a coal-to-gas switch.

Pennsylvania must move quickly to directly regulate methane emissions from natural gas operations. The Drexel study once again makes clear that voluntary efforts aren't working. The time to act is now.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Methane emissions: A short, easy to understand video on a climate killer

The conversation around how to deal with methane emissions is quickly heating up in Pennsylvania. As the fastest growing gas producing state in the nation, the rate of methane emissions and leaks being generated by our natural gas industry could quickly put us into climate disaster territory.

Natural gas itself is largely methane -- a potent greenhouse gas that accelerates the warming of our atmosphere and leads to more ground level ozone, or smog, which contributes to asthma attacks and lung and heart disease. Affordable technologies exist today that will allow natural gas drillers to capture and sell a great deal of the methane that's currently leaking -- and the cost is mere pennies per thousand cubic feet of gas. This is a problem that already has a solution, yet drillers refuse to act in a meaningful way. It's why we're calling for the direct regulation of methane emissions in Pennsylvania.


Methane Matters: PA Needs to Know from PennFuture on Vimeo.

The above video explains clearly what methane emissions are and why Pennsylvania must address them. Now. The health of our families, and planet, cannot afford to wait. Please share this video far and wide!

Elaine Labalme is strategic campaigns director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Proposed revisions to state oil and gas regulations announced by DEP

We offered our support this week for proposed revisions to Pennsylvania's oil and gas regulations in the following statement: 

PennFuture today signaled its support for comments made by John Quigley, acting secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as he announced revisions to the state's proposed oil and gas drilling regulations as listed in 25 pa. Code Chapter 78 (for conventional oil and gas operations) and Chapter 78a (for unconventional oil and gas operations). 

The revised proposal is an update to regulations that were proposed by DEP in December 2013. Those draft regulations were the subject of more than 24,000 comments from stakeholders on all sides of the issue. PennFuture submitted detailed comments urging DEP to strengthen the regulations to better protect public health and the environment. The organization was gratified to learn that the revised regulations are expected to incorporate many of the ideas included in its 46-page comment letter, including:

• elimination of the use of well-site waste storage pits by unconventional well operators;
• permitting of centralized wastewater impoundments only through the Residual Waste Regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 299, which have more stringent engineering requirements and environmental protections than those the DEP originally proposed to include in Chapter 78;
• extension of the time period for agencies in charge of “public resources” to review and comment on plans for oil and gas drilling operations that may impact public resources; and
• explicit language making clear that a drinking water supply contaminated by oil and gas operations must be restored to the better of pre-drill conditions or Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
  "We're pleased to hear Acting Secretary Quigley emphasize the importance of 'protecting public health and the environment,' and undertaking a process that is 'thoughtful, deliberate, and transparent,' as DEP moves toward finalizing these vital regulations by spring of 2016," said John Norbeck, acting president and CEO of PennFuture. "It is paramount that we have strong rules of the road for oil and gas operations in the state. Our citizens have been demanding this, as witnessed by the 70 percent of Pennsylvanians who support the direct regulation of methane emissions."
  The environmental advocacy organization will review the draft Chapter 78 regulations in full when they are made available by DEP. It will then offer additional comment during the upcoming 30-day period for public participation.
  Elaine Labalme is director of communications for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

BREAKING: Gov. Tom Wolf proposes a 5 percent severance tax on natgas drilling in PA

John Norbeck, acting president and CEO of PennFuture, today issued the following statement regarding Gov. Wolf's proposed 5 percent severance tax on natural gas drilling activity in Pennsylvania:

“Gov. Wolf has heeded the call of Pennsylvanians, who strongly support a severance tax on natural gas drilling in the Keystone state,” said John Norbeck, acting president and CEO of PennFuture. “Pennsylvania is currently the largest natural gas-producing state without a severance tax, and it's time that drillers pay their fair share. As the governor noted, a portion of the tax will deal with the environmental impacts of drilling, an inherently industrial activity. We urge him to also apportion funding from this tax toward renewable energy and energy efficiency.

“Pennsylvania has a history of extractive industries that have harmed the environment and left successive generations to pay for the damage. Gov. Wolf's actions today clearly show that this pattern will come to a close.

“The governor is making it clear that the rights of the citizens of Pennsylvania come first, and the Sheriff is back in town when it comes to natural gas drilling. We cheered his reinstatement less than two weeks ago of the moratorium on new drilling leases of public lands, and applaud his actions today on taxing shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania. Enacting a rule to control methane emissions from natural gas operations should be next on Gov. Wolf's list, a move supported by 70 percent of Pennsylvanians in a recent poll.”

Feds propose methane rule: Good first step but falls short for PA

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a bold and much-needed step in announcing a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry 45 percent by 2025 – emissions which are expected to rise more than 25 percent during the period absent action. 

However, for Pennsylvanians, the rule has missed the mark by identifying only new sources and providing no clear pathway for existing sources of emissions. As the fastest growing natural gas producing state in the nation, Pennsylvania has thousands of operating gas wells that are spewing methane into the air and exacerbating climate change – sources that are not addressed in this proposed federal rule. Further, the 10-year time frame is simply too long – Pennsylvanians cannot afford to wait a decade for better air for their kids. Who would wait a decade to plug a gas leak in their house?

Therefore, it is ever more incumbent on Gov.-elect Tom Wolf to demonstrate leadership on this issue. We are calling on Gov.-elect Wolf to launch a rulemaking in his first 100 days to directly regulate methane in Pennsylvania. Voluntary programs are not the answer when only a handful of drillers comply and the bulk of producers do little – or nothing.

Seventy percent of Pennsylvania voters support methane regulations. The technology to address methane emissions is inexpensive and readily available. Our citizens deserve the public health, environmental, and economic benefits that comprehensive methane standards will afford.

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge. 

Guest post: Mark Brownstein of EDF sets the record straight on methane emissions

In his blog post this week (reprinted with permission), climate champ Mark Brownstein of the Environmental Defense Fund sets the record straight on methane emissions. An important read.

Dope Deal: Wall Street Journal Falls for Methane “Facts” Cooked by Industry

By Mark Brownstein | Bio | Published: January 6, 2015

When credibility is your stock in trade, it’s important to have your facts straight. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal blew it.

In an unsigned opinion piece dubbed “Meth Heads in the White House,” the paper dismisses plans expected to be announced by the Obama administration in the next few weeks that would start to tackle the huge amount of methane leaking from America’s oil & gas production facilities.

The question is a significant one, because – as the article notes in passing – methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas (in point of fact, packing more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame). According to EPA data, oil & gas operations emit roughly 8 million metric tons of unburned methane annually, enough gas to heat nearly 6 million homes.

While acknowledging the problem, the Journal argues that companies are solving it just fine on their own, citing figures which closely track industry talking points suggesting that emissions are already dropping. Unfortunately, the numbers in question are a blend of half-baked, fully cooked and – in one key instance – flat out wrong.

In their most glaring error, Journal editors cite a University of Texas Study published last month (and partly funded by EDF) to claim that oil & gas industry methane emissions have fallen 10 percent between 2013 and 2014 alone. In fact, as study author David Allen has pointed out, the results, which actually come from two different UT studies, fall squarely within the margin of error and hence show no such change in emission rates.

In other words: No, the UT study does not say what the Journal editors say it says. The paper owes its readers a correction.

As to the idea that methane emissions from oil and gas operations have fallen steadily over time, this too is simply false. In reality, oil & gas industry methane emissions as estimated by the EPA stayed relatively flat between 1990 and 2008, and didn’t begin to decline noticeably until 2009. While part of that was the result of smarter practices by select operators, the bigger driver of the reported decline has been 2012 EPA rules limiting natural gas emissions from an important part of the drilling process known as “well completions.”

We’d say those gains are proof-positive that sound regulation gets results.

Reported declines after 2009 also completely ignore oil well emissions, which account for a substantial share of sector’s total methane footprint. (Part of the reduction also stems from changes in how EPA does its math.)

Even those numbers don’t paint the whole picture.

Although EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data shows the industry’s total methane emissions fell 12 percent between 2011 and 2013, emissions from key activities not currently covered by federal standards went up substantially.

According to the very same UT study cited affectionately by the Journal, average emissions from thousands of pneumatic controllers used to operate valves throughout the supply chain are 17 percent higher than EPA estimates, due to a mixture of both unintended malfunctions and deliberately leaky design. Moreover, UT researchers say real-world emissions from these devices may be twice as high as EPA figures due to systematic undercounting by the agency.

Two other recent national studies not mentioned in the article – but available here and here – suggest EPA’s overall estimates of methane emissions from the oil & gas industry are too low by half, based on actual methane emissions measured by scientists.

The good news, firmly underscored by the UT study, is that a relatively small share of wells and equipment are responsible for a disproportionate piece of the emissions pie. The trick is finding which ones are performing badly, and when. And that is precisely why we need tougher rules and regulations. Once we know where the problems are, it is a relatively simple, cost-effective matter to start plugging the leaks.

Could industry police itself, as the Journal suggests? The evidence suggests otherwise. The biggest voluntary program for reducing industry methane emissions, EPA’s Natural Gas Star, has been around since 1993, but of the more than 6,000 producers in operation, fewer than 30 are participants.

Fortunately, the economics favor action. Cutting current methane emissions in half by requiring leak detection and repair and other sensible measures, would save the oil & gas industry nearly $1 billion a year in wasted product and cut the 20-year climate pollution equivalent of 90 coal-fired power plants.

Penciling out the math even farther, a study by ICF recently estimated that companies could cut methane emissions by 40 percent or more for about one quarter of one percent of the price of the gas they’re selling. That means $4.00 worth of gas would cost $4.01 – an affordable bargain even at a time of falling prices.

In short, the Wall Street Journal has the facts backward. When you get the numbers straight, it’s easy to see how the methane problem is also a huge, low-cost opportunity to help address the climate challenge, and to recognize that sensible regulation can set a level playing field for all oil and gas operators, not just the few who choose to do the right thing.

Photo source: flickr.com/photos/earthworks

PA environmental groups: Time is ripe for action on methane pollution

On Wednesday, several of Pennsylvania's most prominent environmental organizations joined forces in calling on Gov.-elect Tom Wolf to address methane emissions from natural gas operations early in his first term. The statement is below. 

****

PA environmental groups: Time is ripe for action on methane pollution

(Harrisburg – January 7, 2015) – Leading Pennsylvania and national environmental organizations today encouraged Governor-elect Tom Wolf to improve the protection of environmental and public health by tackling methane pollution early in his tenure as governor.

Recent polling indicates that 70 percent of Pennsylvanians not only have been dissatisfied with the lack of state leadership on natural gas issues, but also support regulating methane emissions in the state. (Poll conducted by Global Strategy Group of 801 registered voters in Pennsylvania between September 25-29, 2014.)

Mr. Wolf expressed a similar perspective – in line with public sentiment – last year when he addressed the issue of methane leaks: “We need to get clean air and clean water regulations that actually would prevent [methane leaks] from happening.”

By adopting leading-edge practices to prevent methane emissions, Pennsylvania can make a common sense and cost-effective commitment to protecting public health and safety and the environment.

The groups today urged Mr. Wolf to build on public support and make comprehensive methane regulations one of the first acts of his administration. Early action on methane will signal a commitment to safeguarding air, water and land and protecting Pennsylvania families and the communities in which they live.

Participating organizations include the Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Fund, PennEnvironment, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, PennFuture, and The Nature Conservancy – Pennsylvania Chapter.

Andrew Sharp is director of outreach for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets @RexBainbridge.

New poll: Widespread bipartisan support for stronger methane pollution standards

Via the American Lung Association: 

Americans across the country overwhelmingly support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishing the first federal limits on methane emissions in the air they breathe, according to new data released today from a nationwide, bipartisan survey conducted for the American Lung Association. Moreover, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of American voters support the efforts of the EPA to establish stricter air pollution standards overall and believes that EPA scientists, not Congress, should be the ones to make these decisions.

"It is clear that the public supports stronger public health safeguards for the air we breathe," said Harold Wimmer, National President and CEO of the American Lung Association. "Cutting methane and toxic air pollutants like benzene is a winner with the American people. We urge the Environmental Protection Agency to act now."

Voters rated clean air as a higher priority than reducing regulations on businesses, with 80 percent of voters rating it as extremely or very important. By more than a three-to-one margin (69 percent in favor to 21percent opposed), voters want the EPA, not Congress to set the nation’s air pollution standards.  

On the specific issue of methane pollution standards to address air pollution from the oil and gas industry, an overwhelming two-to-one majority favors new methane emissions standards from the EPA. Support for the new standards actually grew after voters heard simulated and balanced arguments that included the strongest messages from both sides of the issue (including attacks from opponents on cost and jobs), resulting in majority support across the political spectrum, including from Republicans.

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's Director of Outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge.

A new day in PA: 5 Things Governor-Elect Wolf Can Do In 100 Days

November 4 saw the election of York County businessman Tom Wolf as Pennsylvania's next governor. Voters spoke loud and clear -- they want a governor who will hold industry accountable -- and that means making drillers pay their fair share, and also enacting tough, new regulations on industry. 

During his campaign, Wolf said he would fight for a cleaner energy future -- and promised new air and water regulations on the gas industry. 

A powerful coalition of some of Pennsylvania's most prominent environmental organizations came together last week to congratulate Governor-elect Wolf and to spell out five things the governor should do in his first 100 days in office. The groups involved: Clean Water Action, Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, PennEnvironment, PennFuture, and the Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter

The organizations urged Governor-elect Wolf to prioritize the following during his first 100 days in office. 

• Save Pennsylvania's State Parks and Forests
• Regulate Methane and Clean Up Pennsylvania's Air
• Plan for the Future on Climate and Energy
• Let the Department of Environmental Protection Protect the Environment
• Keep Our Water Safe

Save State Parks and Forests
In 2014, Corbett overturned a 2010 executive order that created a moratorium on gas leasing in public lands managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Wolf should reinstate that order and make it clear that the order applies to both state parks and state forests, and to both surface and subsurface leases. Wolf should do everything in his power to prevent natural gas development in the Clarence Moore lands of the Loyalsock State Forest.

Regulate methane and Clean Up Pennsylvania's Air
Pennsylvania ranks among the worst states in the nation for air pollution and illnesses like asthma. Currently, Pennsylvania does not directly regulate methane pollution from natural gas operations and lags behind other states in controlling air emissions. Governor-Elect Wolf should work with DEP to directly regulate methane emissions from natural gas operations. Additionally, Pennsylvania should enact a strong "Smog Rule," to limit pollutants like nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds.  

Plan for the Future
Both state and federal laws will require Pennsylvania to adopt new plans to reduce global warming pollution in the coming years. Wolf should produce climate and energy plans based on sound science and focused on rebuilding the wind and solar industries in the state.

Let the Department of Environmental Protection Protect the Environment
Wolf can reverse Corbett's damage to the DEP's commitment and ability to enforce environmental regulations. He can start by implementing the recommendations of the state Auditor General to ensure both full transparency and strong enforcement of gas drilling rules. Wolf should overhaul the DEP's permitting process for gas drilling and create mandatory enforcement penalties to ensure that public health trumps politics and profits in gas operations. Finally, he should instruct the DEP to ban fracking waste pits, a simple way to significantly reduce the health risks of toxic fracking chemicals.

Keep Our Water Safe
The Delaware River Basin Commission currently prohibits fracking in the Delaware River Watershed, from which 15 million Americans get their drinking water. Wolf should publicly restate his support for the moratorium, seek to restore the Commission's budget, and ensure that the DRBC Commissioner from Pennsylvania works to keep our water clean. Additionally, he should push the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to launch a cumulative impact assessment of fracking on the Susquehanna watershed.

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge.

Cindy Dunn: Election was a referendum on Corbett's handling of gas industry

In the aftermath of Tom Wolf's victory over incumbent Tom Corbett, StateImpact's Susan Phillips interviewed PennFuture's CEO Cindy Dunn to discuss what this means for Pennsylvania and the environment:

On the need for comprehensive methane regulations:

Dunn says in addition to CO2, Wolf needs to tackle greenhouse gas causing methane leaks from... gas infrastructure. “Top of the list is methane leaks,” she said. 

On the need for stronger leadership at DEP and DCNR:

“The perception is that [Corbett] was very lax with the regulations, relied on self-policing, and did not promote renewables. It’s interesting for me because I’ve worked in a number of administrations and it is amazing how important direction from the top is when it comes to choosing agency leaders, and communicating high expectations of serving the public.” 

On the newly reinvigorated Environmental Rights Amendment:

“When Wolf is sworn in as governor, he will swear to uphold the state constitution, which includes the environmental rights amendment,” said Dunn. “And this is something that I think he will pay attention to.”

You can check out the entire article here. 

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge. 

Our take: PA Lags on Methane Control

After the Scranton Times-Tribune's forceful editorial calling on the next governor to regulate methane emissions, Governor Tom Corbett's energy executive penned a letter to the Scranton Times-Tribune in which he claimed that Pennsylvania is "leading the way" on addressing methane. In a follow up letter, PennFuture strongly disagreed with this assertion: 

Editor: It was encouraging that Gov. Tom Corbett’s energy executive, Patrick Henderson (Your Opinion, “Emissions Managed,” Oct. 18) recognizes the importance of reducing methane pollution from the natural gas industry. 

Unfortunately, his claim that Pennsylvania is “leading the way” on methane regulations is not true. Under Mr. Corbett, Pennsylvania has taken a Swiss cheese approach to addressing methane and the commonwealth lags behind other states. Pennsylvania has no regulations directly regulating methane emissions. Instead, Pennsylvania has a patchwork of policies and federal rules that result in some reductions, but fall far short of the comprehensive regulations citizens deserve.

Instead of directly regulating methane, Pennsylvania has a voluntary permitting option — one that only applies to drillers who elect to follow it. For new Marcellus wells, an exemption says wells that meet some basic standards don’t need to be permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection’s air program. The exemption calls sources of methane emissions “trivial activities” that don’t require pre-construction approval.

While the current exemption is an improvement over a prior blanket exemption, many loopholes remain. For example, it applies only to new wells, not thousands of existing wells. 

Other states show leadership on this issue. Ohio adopted rules that require oil and gas operators to conduct quarterly leak and repair inspections — in contrast to Pennsylvania’s once-a-year requirement. Industry and environmental groups came together in Colorado to enact a comprehensive set of methane regulations for oil and gas operators. The bulk of operators have to perform quarterly methane leak inspections, with monthly inspections at the largest well sites.

The Times-Tribune’s recent editorial was spot on: Methane pollution from our natural gas industry is a serious threat and the time to take action is now. Our next governor must take necessary steps on methane pollution to truly claim a leadership role.

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge.

VIDEO: "Methane Matters: PA Needs to Know"

You've got questions and we've got answers. What is methane? Why is it leaking from Pennsylvania's natural gas operations? Why is methane such a threat to climate change? Check out this whiteboard animation video for a helpful primer -- then share it with friends.  

Methane Matters: PA Needs to Know from PennFuture on Vimeo.

Regulating methane emissions makes dollars and $ense

Methane emissions from oil and gas development are contributing to the harmful impacts of climate change and it's not just environmentalists sounding the alarm bells. This week, leaders from the financial community took action regarding the urgent need to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector for the sake of our economy.  

"A group of investors managing more than $300 billion in market assets sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration and the White House, calling for the federal government to regulate methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The letter urged covering new and existing oil and gas sites, including upstream and midstream sources, citing that strong methane policy can reduce business risk and create long-term value for investors and the economy. 

They spelled out in no uncertain terms that they regard methane as a serious climate and business problem – exposing the public and businesses alike to the growing costs of climate change associated with floods, storms, droughts, and other severe weather. 

The 18 signers make the point that proven, low-cost solutions already exist to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 percent."  

Colorado's smart methane policy serves as a national model and was developed with input from energy companies, state regulators, and environmentalists.  With the rapid expansion of the gas industry here in the Keystone State, Pennsylvania needs to follow Colorado's lead and regulate methane emissions for the sake of our communities, our climate, and our economy.


Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Scranton Times-Tribune ed board: Look to Colorado on methane rules

The chorus calling for Pennsylvania to address methane emissions from the natural gas sector continues to grow. Last week, the editorial board of the Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal said that stopping methane leakage should be a critical focus of the Wolf and Corbett campaigns -- and both candidates were asked about the issue in last week's final gubernatorial debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

This week, the Scranton Times-Tribune's editorial board weighed in and said Colorado should be a model for Pennsylvania:

...Colorado is the only major gas-drilling state to regulate against methane emissions. Its rules, implemented earlier this year, were crafted by a coalition of energy companies and environmental groups and should become a model for Pennsylvania. Several other gas-producing states, including Ohio, have begun to consider regulations based on the Colorado model.

The Colorado regulations require companies to find and repair methane leaks, processes for which technology already exists. Four of the biggest producers and processors in Colorado — Encana, Anadarko, Noble Energy and DCP Midstream Denver — worked on the new regulatory regime with the Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation Colorado, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, WildEarth Guardians and Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project.

The companies say compliance will cost the industry about $20 million a year, but opponents of the new model say it could cost up to $100 million. Some of the cost will be offset because the companies will sell the methane they capture. According to Colorado government estimates, the new system will recover about 65,000 tons of methane a year that otherwise would have escaped. The same system also will capture another 90,000 tons of smog-causing volatile organic compounds, the state estimated.

For gas to fulfill its potential as a “bridge” fuel, methane emissions must be controlled. Pennsylvania should adopt the Colorado model.

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge.