Methane Rule Rollback

EPA’s Methane Rule Rollback Won’t Apply To Colorado But Could Cause Headaches Down The Road. According to The Durango Herald, “A new Environmental Protection Agency proposal to weaken the rules governing methane emissions would not directly affect Colorado, but, if adopted, the new rules could create two different sets of requirements for producers here and elsewhere and could subject the state to increased pollution from surrounding states. State public health officials, industry and environmental representatives told The Colorado Independent that Colorado’s regulations would remain unchanged by federal policy. ‘The operators in the state of Colorado will have to comply with our rules that have been on the books for a long time,’ said Jeremy Neustifter, an Air Quality Planner with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. … Neustifter said he does not expect Colorado producers to become emboldened and see the signals from Washington as a go-ahead to undermine the state’s existing rules. Dan Haley, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, confirmed as much, saying in a statement: ‘Colorado oil and natural gas companies are working hard to follow these rules and we are seeing emission levels drop as a result. Colorado’s air is getting cleaner, and we are proud to be part of the solution.’ The problem with state-by-state regulations: Wind blows methane across borders.” [The Durango Herald, 9/13/18 (=)]

EPA Draws Fire For Downplaying Health, GHG Risks From Methane Rule. According to Inside EPA, “Environmentalists are criticizing EPA analysis downplaying the health and climate harms from its newly unveiled proposal to ease methane limits for new oil and gas facilities, citing a prior analysis by agency staff that they argue points to officials’ ability to quantify specific health harms. In addition, critics continue to oppose EPA’s efforts to downplay the climate-related damages from the laxer regulations by focusing on domestic-only harms, even though the agency acknowledges deep in its regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that the proposal would have far bigger adverse effects if global impacts were considered. EPA’s Sept. 11 proposal represents only the first stage in the Trump administration’s efforts to scale back Obama-era methane rules for the oil and gas sector, suggesting these issues could re-surface in subsequent rulemakings. The criticisms underscore that environmentalists and public health advocates will seek to highlight potential public health harms from the deregulatory proposals, even as the agency minimizes them. Specifically, Conrad Schneider of the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) tells Inside EPA that a July paper authored by EPA staff, estimating ozone- and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)-related deaths due to oil and gas sector emissions, does not appear to have factored into the RIA, which does not quantify health effects from increased emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) due to the proposed weaker requirements.” [Inside EPA, 9/14/18 (=)]

Shell To Lay Out Targets To Manage Methane Emissions. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Royal Dutch Shell PLC said it will announce plans to lay out targets to manage its emissions of the greenhouse gas methane Monday, joining a handful of major oil companies that have made similar pledges this year. The British-Dutch oil giant said it will disclose objectives to bring down methane emissions related to oil and natural gas extraction and transportation. Methane is the main component of natural gas, but it often leaks into the atmosphere from wells, pipes, storage tanks and processing plants. Like carbon dioxide, it is a greenhouse gas that can contribute to atmospheric warming. The company said it is aiming to limit methane emissions to less than 0.2% of the total natural gas extracted from any one project. Currently, Shell has no way of accurately measuring its so-called methane-emission intensity across the entire company, but for some projects it is as high as 0.8%, the company says. The planned targets come even as the Trump administration moves to roll back Obama-era rules aimed at limiting methane leaks. Shell’s head of gas, Maarten Wetselaar, said the company believes those limits should stay in place, though the U.S. regulation could be improved. ‘Everybody should want their product to stay in the pipe and be sold to the customer rather than leak it,’ Mr. Wetselaar said. ‘It’s essentially uncontroversial. Nobody in the industry should want to leak any methane.’” [The Wall Street Journal, 9/16/18 (=)]

Clean Energy Versus Gas. According to PV Magazine, “In October 2017, NRG asked California regulators to withdraw consideration of its 262 MW Puente Gas plant in Southern California’s Ventura County. The project was controversial, as it had been planned for a low-income area, but that was not what made this project historic. Due to two other generators going offline, there was a need for capacity in the area, which the Puente plant would have addressed. Instead, utility Southern California Edison put forward an alternate plan involving transmission upgrades, energy storage, and renewable energy, which California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) found could meet these needs. And this led to Puente becoming the first gas plant in the state’s history to be rejected by CPUC. It would not be the last time decision-makers in California passed over gas infrastructure in favor of clean energy. In the past year, two upgrades to gas power plants have been cancelled, and three existing gas plants have lost lucrative contracts, without which they will likely be shut down. Additionally, in March 2018, the state’s grid operator approved a plan by Pacific Gas and Electric Company involving a combination of grid upgrades, renewable energy, and storage instead of renewing the contract for a petroleum-fired plant near Oakland. This is not to mention the roughly 100 MW of battery storage that CPUC approved in May 2016 to make up for unavailable gas generation due to the Aliso Canyon leak.” [PV Magazine, 9/13/18 (=)]

Will It End In Tears? Enron Author Examines Fracking Boom. According to E&E News, “Halfway through her new book, Bethany McLean offers an epitaph for the late Aubrey McClendon, one of the pioneers of the fracking boom. McClendon’s company, Chesapeake Energy Corp., had become the second-largest U.S. gas producer after Exxon Mobil Corp., but he was forced out as CEO after complaints about his lavish perks and the company’s debt load. He died in a car accident in 2016, a day after being indicted on bid-rigging charges, which were later dropped (Energywire, March 3, 2016). ‘Is Chesapeake the model for this business? It changes the world but it ends in tears?’ McLean quotes a hedge fund manager as asking. It’s the kind of question McLean has built a career around. In 2001, she wrote an article for Forbes magazine asking how Enron Corp., the Houston-based energy trading giant, made its money. The article helped push Enron into bankruptcy, and produced a book and documentary, ‘The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron.’ Her latest book, ‘Saudi America: The Truth About Fracking and How It’s Changing the World,’ is an attempt to ask the same kind of pointed questions about the unconventional drilling boom that’s been going on since the mid-2000s.” [E&E News, 9/17/18 (=)]