Does the US Need More Methane Regulations?

Michael Levi, the Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, takes a different approach, acknowledging the danger of methane while downplaying it’s immediacy. While Levi deemphasizes the immediate negative impact of methane, he also contends that pipeline leaks are a serious concern and that reliance on methane emitting natural gas must be short-term.

Levi argues that the discussion should be less about methane regulation and more about the long-term future of natural gas, coal, and renewable energy. In his 2013 book The Power Surge , Levi wrote “The basic truth about natural gas as part of a serious climate strategy is simple: conventional use of gas needs to be an element a genuine bridge between coal and zero carbon fuels, and that bridge must eventually end.”

One of his main arguments in favor of the notion of a “bridge fuel” is that the long-term impact of methane is less severe than that of carbon dioxide emissions. In 2014, he downplayed concerns over methane, saying “I actually think methane is mostly a red herring here… the methane debate is a distraction from a much more important climate issue.”

While carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere indefinitely, exacerbating climate change over the very long term, methane only remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years. This means, according to a 2015 article  by Levi that “while more methane leakage boosted short-term warming, it had little impact on peak temperatures – the ultimate metric of climate change.”

However, even though methane emissions are less of a concern than carbon dioxide, Levi contends, they are still a threat. The short-term nature of methane emissions means that  “a natural gas bridge can’t last long. A short bridge means relatively little in the way of methane leakage, and a relatively small impact on peak temperatures as a result.”

In other words, while methane will dissipate from the atmosphere before long, it cannot be relied on for a long period of time before having a lasting impact on the climate. This is due, in part, to the problem of methane emissions from pipeline leaks.

Levi wrote in 2015  that “methane leaks are, indeed, often substantial… there is now no doubt that there are major opportunities to reduce climate change by slashing methane emissions.” He cited an investigation by the Environmental Defense Fund earlier that year which found a significant amount of leaks from natural gas pipelines.

While regulation on methane emissions is necessary, to some degree, Levi warned  that “the rules need to be right.” He said that a balance must be created between environmentalists who want to end hydraulic fracturing and natural gas use and members of the industry that reject regulation. Instead, he argued  that efforts to prevent methane leaks can be most effective by drawing on industry practices and making voluntary efforts employed by some companies mandatory across the sector.

On March 10, President Obama announced  that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would begin developing new regulations to reduce methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources by 40 to 45 percent by 2025. He made this statement alongside Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as part of a declaration of Canadian-U.S. cooperation on climate change.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy reiterated  her commitment to methane reduction that same day writing “By tackling methane emissions, we can unlock an amazing opportunity to spur U.S. action to protect our environment.” She announced that the EPA would begin requiring oil and gas companies to provide emissions information, so that the agency can determine how to properly regulate methane sources.

Methane, or CH4 , is a potent greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere from both natural sources and human activities. Almost 30 percent of U.S. methane emissions come from the oil and gas sector, making this industry the largest contributor. Because natural gas is primarily composed of methane, natural gas pipeline leaks are a major source of methane emissions, as they release the pollutant into the atmosphere. However, methane also results from oil production where unusable natural gas is deliberately released, or vented.

Methane reduction, the EPA contends, is an extremely important component  of mitigating climate change. Methane is arguably even more significant than carbon dioxide, as it has 25 times the impact on global warming. This means that, over 100 years, one pound of methane in the atmosphere warms the planet as much as 25 pounds of carbon dioxide. This accelerates the rise in global temperatures, contributing to concerns such as weather disruption and polar ice melting.

McCarthy has also warned  that recent findings indicate methane emissions are much higher than previously estimated and that these emissions will continue to rise due to expanded natural gas use and hydraulic fracturing. The EPA’s 2016 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks found that “Methane emissions have increased by approximately 11 percent from 2012 levels.”

The EPA expects emissions to increase at an even faster rate in the future, predicting  that “[Methane] emissions from the oil and natural system are expected to grow 26 percent between 2010 and 2030.” This forecast is “largely due to the continued expansion of domestic oil and natural gas production in the United States.”

While the EPA has issued regulations on methane emissions before, these previous reductions have only been targeted at new oil and gas facilities, rather than those currently in operation.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), a leading trade association representing the oil and natural gas industry, quickly criticized  the EPA proposal for the reduction of methane emissions as “unnecessary” and warned that the move would likely raise energy costs and potentially halt the boom in domestic energy production.

API Vice President of Regulatory and Economic Policy Kyle Isakower stressed  that the boom in shale production “has lowered energy costs for American consumers by $700 a year at the pump and $1200 in home utility bills.” New regulations, he said, threaten to reverse these gains.

API has further argued: “Additional regulations on methane by the administration could discourage the shale energy revolution that has helped America lead the world in reducing emissions while significantly lowering the costs of energy to consumers. The administration is catering to environmental extremists at the expense of American consumers.”

API explained that more regulation of methane is unnecessary because methane emissions are already on the decline and represent a negligible share of overall greenhouse gas pollution. API president Jack Gerard said  in January 2015 that “as oil and natural gas production has risen dramatically, methane emissions have fallen thanks to industry leadership and investment in new technologies.” He added that “methane emissions represent only two percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.”

In fact, API points to EPA data , which they claim shows that “methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells have fallen nearly 79 percent since 2005, and total methane emissions from natural gas systems are down 11 percent over the same period.”

The industry group emphasizes how much oil and gas companies voluntarily invest in reducing pollution, releasing a study  in September 2015 which found that industry investments were the main driver behind reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The study claims that between 2000 and 2014, the oil and gas industry invested “$90 billion in emissions technologies.”

In addition, API has stressed the importance of the oil and natural gas industry on the overall United States economy. Their website states  that 9.8 million jobs nationwide depend on the industry and that oil and gas production comprised eight percent of national GDP.

Given the likely economic impact of the rules, the oil and gas industry has argued that the rule’s timing is poor. In a February press briefing against methane regulation, API official Erik Milito acknowledged  that the industry “is certainly experiencing challenging times,” adding that this fact “makes smart energy policy all the more important.”