Citizens from PA, OH, WV show overwhelming support for EPA methane rule at public hearing

Concerned parents, public health advocates, faith leaders, students, and environmentalists from Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia applauded the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas industry at a public hearing held by the agency in downtown Pittsburgh on September 29. Media outlets including the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Harrisburg Patriot-News, Observer-Reporter (Washington County), and StateImpact PA covered the hearing.

Rob Altenburg, director of the PennFuture Energy 
Center, testifies at the EPA hearing alongside 
Energy Policy Analyst Jennie Demjanick

The agency's hearing in Pittsburgh was one of three held across the U.S., with the other two in Denver and Dallas the previous week. Citizens packed two hearing rooms at the William S. Moorhead Federal Building, where many spoke in support of the federal rule as they encouraged the administration of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf to do more to rein in these harmful emissions. Testifiers in support of the rule outnumbered those against, 92-2. Testimony by PennFuture Energy Center director, Rob Altenburg, can be found on our website.

The proposed rules seek to cut methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025, from 2012 levels. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas – up to 84 times more so than CO2 in the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere. The oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane pollution in the nation. Methane emissions combine with toxic co-pollutants to form ground-level ozone, or smog, which leads to negative health impacts including asthma, lung and heart disease - illnesses that disproportionately affect children, the elderly, and under-served populations.

“The EPA's proposed methane rules are a good first step but Pennsylvania can and must do more to reduce this harmful pollution,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of PennFuture. “Pennsylvania needs to adopt its own best-in-the-nation standards to cover both new and existing sources of emissions from the thousands of oil and gas wells in our state. We should use this momentum to accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon, clean energy future – our children's futures depend on it.”

PennFuture CEO Larry Schweiger testifies at EPA hearing

“Strong rules that mandate a reduction in methane will mitigate climate change and help improve air quality and public health,” said Joseph Otis Minott, Esq., executive director of Clean Air Council. “EPA’s efforts are a good first step that will provide a backstop to safeguard public health and clean our air using technologies that already exist. At the same time, the rules will not tackle the thousands of tons of methane pollution currently leaking from Pennsylvania’s expansive gas industry because they will only apply to new or modified gas facilities while expecting voluntary cooperation from operators of existing sources. Pennsylvania needs to act quickly to address both new sources of methane pollution as well as existing natural gas infrastructure. As the second-largest natural gas producing state in the nation, we will accept nothing less.”

“As a registered nurse and health care professional, the EPA's proposed methane rules will aid in primary prevention to reduce asthma and other respiratory illnesses which are exacerbated by harmful methane emissions and their toxic co-pollutants,” said Dr. Peggy Berry, PhD., MSN, RN. “The fight for improved health is one we are waging actively in my state, Ohio, and throughout the region and country. It's time for the oil and gas industry to clean up its act and stop jeopardizing the health and welfare of our communities and landscapes. As registered nurses and health care professionals, we thank the EPA for taking this step in the right direction.”

Sr. Donna Zwigart speaks at #CutMethane rally

"Our leaders must continue the transition to truly clean, renewable energy that is already taking place,” said Sr. Donna Zwigart of the Sisters of St. Francis. “In the meantime, a strong, unwavering commitment from Gov. Tom Wolf and our elected leaders including Sen. Bob Casey to forcefully tackle both carbon and methane pollution is the kind of action that will show Pope Francis that Pennsylvania means business and will lead the fight against climate change.”

"The youth across the nation and world are addressing our governments and leaders – now, loudly,” said Sage Lincoln, student activist at the University of Pittsburgh. “You cannot leave us gasping for breath amid polluted air. You cannot let our fears become reality. The time to act in Pennsylvania, and nationally, is now. As we support the EPA's methane rules, the youth ask Gov. Tom Wolf to lead in Pennsylvania with the strongest state methane rules possible. It is OUR future that is in the hands of our leaders and they must not delay.”

The EPA will be accepting public comment on the proposed methane rule through November 18.

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

The upside of reducing methane emissions: New jobs, a more secure future.

As PennFuture has been urging for quite a while now, industry and government must act soon to limit methane leakage from natural gas wells and pipelines.

As important as it is to crack down on CO2 pollution from coal-burning power plants (which is why we are such strong supporters of the Presidents' Clean Power Plan Rule), if we don't simultaneously stop methane leaking from natural gas infrastructure, we'll still be off course for slowing climate change.

What has us scratching our heads is why the natural gas industry hasn't already voluntarily stopped the leaks. Since methane is indeed natural gas, all that leaky methane entering that atmosphere is simply wasteful on industry's part, since they could sell that captured methane and help offset the cost of implementation. Why let potential revenue vanish into thin air?

An encouraging new report prepared for the Environmental Defense Fund shows that fixing the leaks can be a win-win proposition: Dozens of American companies now manufacture, sell and support methane control technology that works.

Pennsylvania, with so much natural gas infrastructure, should see many new jobs from the commercial deployment of this technology—if the natgas industry would start using it. (Explore this cool interactive map to see what's already happening here.)

And since we can't rely on the industry to do the right thing voluntarily, we need our governments—state and federal—to require them to do this.

Why should this be a fight? How can we resist technology that creates new jobs for Pennsylvania families and helps stabilize climate change?

There's no reason that we can see for industry not to jump on this technology.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Why the concern over fugitive methane emissions?

Methane is the biggest component of natural gas, which we burn to heat our buildings, generate our power, and even move some of our vehicles.

So what is fugitive methane, and why do we care about it? The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has a new infographic that's helpful in grasping the problem.

Fugitive methane is what inadvertently escapes into the atmosphere during the process of getting natural gas from where it lies underground to the point at which it's burned for heat or power.

Although carbon dioxide is the biggest source of climate-disrupting, heat-trapping emissions (due to all the fossil fuels we burn, including natural gas), molecule for molecule, methane is far more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere, perhaps 25 times more potent, according to the UCS.

Up to 9 percent of the natural gas we remove from the ground escapes as fugitive methane and has very significant heat-trapping ability, so this issue really is an 800-pound gorilla that society needs to wrestle with.

The methane leaks at many points: drilling sites, storage facilities, pipelines, etc. Our power grid is aging -- and old pipes tend to leak more than new ones.

It's worrisome to note that the UCS finds that fugitive methane emissions are higher for the drilling of shale gas than for conventional natural gas drilling.

Another problem: It's quite difficult to measure the actual leakage rates, or make any reliable projections about overall leakage, from our energy infrastructure since amounts of leakage can vary largely from site to site depending on geology, specific technology employed, etc.

As UCS says, we need more research to be done. But even as the science around methane evolves, we know enough to start fixing the problem in places now.

So what's a concerned society to do? Advocate for proven, cost-effective technologies where possible to reduce the amount of fugitive emissions. We need to be squeaky wheels to make sure the feds and states are monitoring what's going on in the field, and to hold polluters accountable.


And, of course, the most serious and appropriate response is for society to move away from dependence on all fossil fuels -- including methane -- as quickly as possible, and to move to a cleaner, more efficient economy that relies on truly renewable energy. 

There's no such thing as "fugitive" emissions from solar panels, wind turbines, or geothermal heating/cooling systems.

Now we have another reason to leave fossil fuels behind. As if we needed one.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadephia. She tweets @joybergey.

Are methane emissions from natural gas wells a bigger problem than previously thought?

Scientists from several leading research universities, including Purdue and Cornell, published an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that calls into question the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) estimates for methane emissions during the drilling phase of fracking operations in the Marcellus shale. These findings could have a significant impact on the public debate surrounding the impact natural gas development has on climate change.

Scientists monitored methane emissions by airplane and attempted to trace significant methane emissions back to their sources. They determined that certain Marcellus shale wells in western Pennsylvania emitted 34 grams of methane per second during drilling, a phase of production not previously assumed to be a significant source of methane emissions. This is two to three orders of magnitude (100-1,000 times) higher than the EPA’s estimate for methane emissions during drilling.

The discrepancies in estimates of methane emissions are significant because methane, which is the primary component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas. Although its lifespan in the atmosphere is shorter than that of carbon dioxide, methane is much more capable of trapping radiation than carbon dioxide. EPA estimates that methane can have about 20 times the impact on climate change as the same mass of carbon dioxide over 100 years.

It is clear that we still have a lot to learn about methane emissions from fracking activities and their role in climate change. EPA says that more studies are being conducted, and those data will be analyzed by government scientists. For now, this is another reminder that natural gas development must be approached cautiously.

Mike Helbing is a staff attorney for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia.