Defending Air Pollution Standards 
for the Oil & Gas Sector

Defending Air Pollution Standards 
for the Oil & Gas Sector
(Methane and VOCs)

What’s at Risk, How to Comment and Talking Points 

Oil well flaring gas

Photo credit: Clean Oil & Gas Foundation

Deadline for Public Comment on Rollback Proposal:
August 9, 2017

Dockets:
T
hree-month stay https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0346-0001

Two-year stay https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7736

EPA Final Rule (Before Proposed Rollback)

The standards at risk would control methane emissions and some related toxic air pollutants.  EPA finalized these requirements in May 2016 as ambient air quality standards (updates to the New Source Performance Standards) for the oil and natural gas sector. 

The rule is designed to achieve significant reductions in methane emissions from new, reconstructed and modified processes and equipment used in oil and natural gas extraction and production.  (For regulatory geeks: the rule applies to well site pneumatic pump standards; fugitive emissions; and requires that closed vent systems be certified by a professional engineer.)

The rule will also reduce smog-forming and toxic emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from sources such as fracking (hydraulically fractured oil wells) that were not covered by earlier standards. 

The oil and gas industry could meet these emission limits using pollution control technologies that are cost-effective and readily available.  Prior to adopting this rule, EPA considered more than 900,000 public comments and held three public hearings.

Trump Administration Rollback Proposal

The methane and toxics air quality standard is a final regulation. This means that EPA and the States should start requiring oil and gas companies to begin installing pollution control equipment to control methane emissions now.  However, EPA is proposing to “stay“ (i.e. not implement) these pollution control requirements while the Agency re-writes the rule. For procedural reasons, two proposals are open for comment: a two-year stay, and a three-month stay.   During these stays, the agency plans to re-write the rule to make methane emission limits less protective.

Update: “On July 31, the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered EPA to resume enforcing its methane rule for new oil and gas wells, a potentially temporary but important loss for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s deregulatory agenda.” (From Politico Pro.)

What To Say

First, explain why you’re commenting on this rule – why it matters to you.

If you have relevant expertise, say so. You don’t have to be an expert to make a valid and valuable comment, but if you do have expertise, share your knowledge.

If you have information relevant to the rule (for example, news articles about events in your community or anecdotal information showing how the public is impacted) include that information and highlight it.

Be constructive and civil. Don’t write a lot if less will do. 

suggested talking points about This Rule
  • Methane is a dangerous air pollutant, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change and ground-level ozone. To slow climate change sooner rather than later, it’s important to control methane now, especially because its global warming potential is more than 25 times that of carbon dioxide.1 Methane is also a component in smog, which causes asthma and other severe health effects.
  • The oil and gas industry is a significant source of emissions of methane and associated VOCs (volatile organic compounds). Methane leaks are expensive.2  Fixing methane and VOC leaks is not expensive.3
  • Efforts to cut methane waste create jobs.  American entrepreneurs are creating innovative, cutting-edge technologies which make it economically feasible for the oil and gas companies capture methane emissions.4
  • EPA finalized a rule to control methane and VOC emissions from the oil and gas sector after extensive analysis and public process. The pollution control technologies required by this rule are cost effective and readily available. EPA should not re-write this rule to make it less protective of public health and our atmosphere.
  • EPA should not “stay” implementation of this rule for two years.  EPA and the States should immediately begin requiring that companies in the oil and gas sector begin installing pollution control equipment to control methane and VOC emissions. Delaying the rule will result in more climate-changing emissions, more smog and more wasted energy.  Estimated benefits of the oil and gas methane rule significantly exceed the estimated costs.  Delay would mean the public gives up those benefits in the meantime.5
  • It is irresponsible for the Trump Administration to delay pollution reductions that we need now while they figure out what to do next.
How to Submit Your Comment to EPA

EPA will accept written comments on the proposals until August 9, 2017.  You can submit the same comments to both proposals. To submit online comments for each of the two proposals, click on the following links and then click on the “comment now” button.

If you wish to submit comments by mail, fax, or other means see directions at https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/how-comment-proposed-stays-oil-and-gas.  Comments should be identified by the following Docket IDs:

  • Three-month stay: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0346
  • Two-year stay: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505
Links for more information

Endnotes

1 Los Angeles Times, “Opinion: Methane is a ‘super pollutant’ that the federal government must help keep out of our air,” March 2, 2017.  

2 Total methane emissions across the oil and gas sector are said to be worth $1.8 billion. Datu Research, The Emerging U.S. Methane Mitigation Industry, October 2014.  Based on EPA’s 2014 emissions inventory of 7.7m metric tons, multiplied by the 12-month average Henry Hub gas price from August 2013-September 2014 per the EIA of $4.38/mcf.

3 In a survey done in Colorado gauging the industry’s reaction to that state’s methane rule, most — seven in ten — thought the benefits outweighed the costs and only one in ten thought that the cost was a lot more than the benefit to the company.  Memo from Chris Keating, Keating Research, for the Center for Methane Emissions Solutions, The Colorado Case Study on Methane Emissions: Conversations with the Oil and Gas Industry, April 10, 2016. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15d5c6748d609a6e?projector=1

4 There are currently at least 76 American firms in the methane mitigation industry at 531 locations in 46 states with 102 manufacturing sites. Datu, op.cit., p.23

5 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. May 2016. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630 

Leave a Reply