This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.

on Energy

Fiscal policy Budgets Budget and finances by state Tax policy by state State Budget Terms State government tax collections by source Total state expenditures State spending by function as a percent of total expenditures State debt Finance Financial regulation in the United States Dodd-Frank Act Federal Reserve Pensions Pension policy by state Public pension health by state Pension reform in San Jose and San Diego Pension Terms and Definitions Public pensions Civil liberties Affirmative action Campaign finance Nonprofit regulation Education Public education by state School choice by state Charter schools by state Higher education by state Education policy in the United States Public education in the United States Education statistics Education statistics in the United States Education spending per pupil Number of schools by school type in the U.S. Demographic information for all students in the United States Public school system expenditures in the United States Public school system revenues in the United States Public school teacher salaries in the United States Graduation rates by groups in state Public high school dropout rates by state ACT and SAT scores in the United States NAEP scores by state Major terms Blended learning Charter schools Common Core Dropout rate Progressive education Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate School vouchers Teacher merit pay United States education agencies Elections Voting policy Voter identification laws by state Online voter registration Early voting Ballot access Ballot access for presidential candidates Ballot access for major and minor party candidates List of political parties in the United States Political party designation Redistricting State-by-state redistricting procedures Majority-minority districts Energy and Environment Energy Policy by state Fracking Portal Fracking information by state Fracking Fracking in the United States Energy policy in the United States Energy use in the United States Oil and gas on federal lands by state Energy terms and definitions Agencies and legislation Environmental Policy by state Endangered Species Policy Endangered species policy by state Environmental policy in the United States Environmental statistics Endangered species statistics Glossary of environmental terms Glossary of endangered species terms Healthcare Healthcare policy by state Medicaid spending by state Effect of the Affordable Care Act by state Healthcare policy in the United States Affordable Care Act Immigration Immigration in the United States Immigration by state

State energy policy
U.S. energy policy
U.S. fracking policy
Energy terms

Methane (CH₄) is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, and flammable gas that is the main component of natural gas. It is a naturally occurring gas emitted from sources such as wetlands, oceans, sediments, wildfires, and volcanoes. Human beings cause methane to be emitted during livestock cultivation, natural gas extraction, and other industrial activities. Though human beings are exposed to limited amounts of methane outdoors, methane is harmful to human health in that it can be highly explosive or act as an asphyxiant in high concentrations in small spaces. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers methane to be a greenhouse gas because methane can trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and contribute to a greenhouse effect. Methane accounted for 10.6 percent of all U.S. anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions in 2014, making it the second most commonly emitted greenhouse gas.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Under President Barack Obama (D), the EPA took steps to regulate human-made methane emissions as part of the administration's Climate Action Plan. Supporters of the EPA's regulations argue that because methane is the second most common greenhouse gas, limiting methane emissions is important in combating climate change. Critics of the EPA's steps argue that these methane regulations are ineffective and too costly for the purported climate and other environmental benefits; some say that climate change is not an issue the federal government should be addressing.

In March 2017, the EPA under the Trump administration withdrew a request that oil and gas producers report information about their methane emissions to the agency. The Obama administration issued the request as part of its regulations to limit methane emissions. On March 1, 2017, eleven states sent a letter to the EPA asking the agency to reverse the requests: Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.^[6][7]

Overview[edit]

Overview[edit]

The chemical structure of methane

Methane is an organic compound, meaning it contains carbon, and is considered to be one of the simplest organic compounds. Methane is emitted by humans as part of energy and agricultural development, as well as naturally by the environment as plant and animal matter decomposes. These emissions are often categorized as either anthropogenic (human-caused) or naturogenic (naturally occurring), although separating these two emission sources "is a difficult endeavor in such highly complex systems," including large-scale areas with agricultural activities, according to an April 2016 article by six scientists writing in the journal Global Change Biology. For example, the cultivation of livestock, which produce methane through the digestive process, are categorized as human-caused methane emissions, according to the EPA. A 2006 article in the publication Science estimated that 64 percent of methane emissions were human-caused and 36 percent of methane emissions were naturogenic. According to the EPA, human activity accounted for over 60 percent of global methane emissions. The human sources of methane emissions in the United States in 2014 were natural gas extraction (33 percent), enteric fermentation—a digestive process in which microorganisms in animals break down carbohydrates into simpler molecules for absorption into the bloodstream—or livestock cultivation (22 percent), landfills (20 percent), coal mining (9 percent), manure management (8 percent), and other sources (6 percent). According to the EPA, human-caused methane emissions fell 14.8 percent between 1990 and 2014 while oil and natural gas production increased by 16 percent and 31.5 percent, respectively, during the same period. According to the European Commission's Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, global methane emissions in 2012 totaled 8.004 million kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent (a measure used to compare the emissions of greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential). Of that total, methane emissions in the United States in 2012 accounted for 499,809 kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent—6.2 percent of global methane emissions in 2012.^{[9][5][10][11][12][13]}

The increase in natural gas production across the United States, due in large part to technologies such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), has led to concerns about human-caused methane emissions from natural gas extraction and usage. The EPA estimated that methane emissions from natural gas accounted for 1.4 percent of the total volume of methane produced in the United States in 2014. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which is found in deposits under the earth's crust, often in combination with petroleum deposits. Once extracted, natural gas is shipped through pipelines. The combustion of methane produces energy that is used to generate electricity and heat buildings.^[14][5]

Livestock production also contributes to human-caused methane

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates methane as a greenhouse gas (GHG). Methane is the second most common greenhouse gas emitted by humans, accounting for about 11 percent of total domestic human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the most common greenhouse gas and it accounted for 80.9 percent of U.S. human-caused greenhouse gas emissions in 2014. According to the EPA, methane stays in the atmosphere for 12 years, as opposed to CO₂, which does not have a clear life span, even though some CO₂ emissions remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Since methane is more efficient at trapping radiation in the atmosphere than CO₂, the EPA believes, "pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH₄ on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO₂ over a 100-year period."^[5]

Political debate[edit]

The political debate over regulating methane revolves principally around the issues of hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') and global warming. As part of this larger debate, politicians, scientists, and other groups debate the exact impacts of methane on the atmosphere and the best ways to address those impacts. The EPA began regulating GHG emissions following the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency, which found that the EPA had the power to regulate CO₂ emissions and other greenhouse gases, if the agency showed that the emissions posed a danger to public health. The EPA did so in 2009, relating greenhouse gases to dangerous levels of global warming and therefore public health. Those who support regulation of methane do so as one policy response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate potential global warming. While methane emissions comprise a smaller proportion of GHG emissions than CO₂, methane's increased ability to trap heat in the atmosphere led the EPA to begin regulating human-caused methane emissions from landfills and oil and gas operations. In addition to these regulations, President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan has set a goal of reducing methane emissions by 40-45 percent from 2012 levels by the year 2025. Additionally, the Obama administration joined an agreement with Canada to reduce methane emissions. Other supporters of methane regulation have argued that the regulations will help limit and ultimately end the process of fracking, which they view as harmful to the environment. Opponents of methane regulation have pointed out that methane emissions have declined without regulation as natural gas production from fracking increased.^[5][15][16]

An aerial view of oil and gas wells in Texas

Opponents of methane regulations point out that methane is not harmful to human health or the environment and is not an air pollutant, such as sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide, both of which are regulated under the Clean Air Act for their health and environmental hazards. Because methane regulations apply to energy use and ignore emissions from natural sources such as wetlands and oceans, opponents have argued that the regulations target the energy sector, increasing the cost of production and leading to higher energy prices for consumers. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, the decline in methane emissions coupled with an increase in natural gas production from 1990 to 2014 shows how market forces, not regulations, have incentivized producers to capture and sell methane due to its economic use in electricity and heat production. Moreover, the EPA has cited "voluntary reductions" as the main cause of declining methane emissions. Further, opponents have argued that the regulations will have little to no measurable impact on reducing global temperatures and thus reducing global warming. The libertarian Cato Institute has disputed the EPA's calculations on the regulation's effectiveness in halting or reducing a rise in global temperatures. Cato experts have argued that because methane has a short lifetime when compared to CO₂, "it is harder to build-up methane in the atmosphere and that methane releases are more a short-term issue than a long-term one." Cato experts have also argued that "oil and gas methane comprises only about 3 percent of the total greenhouse effect changes coming from all US emissions." Thus, any methane regulations would have a small impact on overall methane emissions. As a result, the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations on methane as well as carbon dioxide will have little impact on global temperatures. Using the EPA's climate models, Cato experts predicted that if the United States ceased all greenhouse gas emissions, including all emissions from oil, coal, and natural gas use, just 0.15 degree Celsius of global warming would be avoided by the year 2100.^[17][18]

Climate change[edit]

Climate change is a natural phenomenon that includes significant or large-scale changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, or other weather-related events that can occur over a long period, including decades or more. Although the climate is always changing naturally, some scientists have theorized that the increase in methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases contributes to global warming and subsequent changes in the climate. This theory of human-caused climate change states that the increase in these gases is directly caused by human activities, particularly the burning of oil and natural gas. These scientists use emissions data and computer-generated models that attempt to simulate how the climate has changed in the past and how it could change in the future.^[19]

Human-caused climate change has emerged as policy issue because some view it as a major environmental challenge. Its precise effects on public health, economic activity, and the natural environment have been subject to scientific inquiry and debate. Those who support taking action on climate change interpret data and computer-generated models to show that global warming is dangerous and accelerating due primarily to human activity. They argue that more global warming will lead to rising sea levels, more severe storms, more droughts, and more acidic oceans. The EPA has further argued that climate change will most adversely affect children, the elderly, and low-income individuals and thus governmental action is necessary to mitigate climate change's potential effects.^[20][21]

Some critics of the theory of human-made climate change have argued that legitimate uncertainties exist in climate science and that hypotheses arguing that human-caused global warming will be catastrophic have been given undue attention despite the lack of consensus among climate scientists on the magnitude of future warming or the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, critics of the theory have argued that alternative scientific hypotheses are underreported and are not given serious consideration. These hypotheses include the view that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions have played little to no role in global warming as well as scientific research from other climate scientists suggesting that only some portion of previous warming is due to human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, the federal government funds scientific research reflecting the view of climate science that is favorable to federal climate policies over other, legitimate scientific views. Critics argue that climate scientists continue to debate the precise causes of climate change, the rate at which the globe is warming, the precise effects of human-caused emissions on warming, the integrity of computer climate models that project warming in future decades and centuries, and the appropriate and most accurate climate and temperature data needed to calculate past and future warming. Further, critics of the theory have argued that climate policies, such as carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system for reducing emissions, or regulations on new and existing power plants will produce negative economic effects, such as fewer jobs and higher energy prices, without any measurable impact on current or future global temperatures.^[22][23][24]

Sources of methane[edit]

Sources of methane emissions[edit]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified seven areas of human-caused methane emissions, three of which comprised over 66 percent of all U.S. methane emissions in 2014. The chart in this section shows the top seven sources of methane emissions in the U.S. that year.

Top seven sources of methane emissions in the U.S., 2014

1. Petroleum and natural gas systems include the oil and natural gas industry. These systems were the largest source of human-caused methane emissions in 2014. Methane can be released during the "production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution" of petroleum and natural gas products. The EPA states that these industries can lower emissions by upgrading the equipment used in petroleum and gas production. As such, the EPA has promulgated methane regulations in part requiring equipment upgrades in an attempt to decrease methane emissions.
2. Enteric fermentation refers to livestock, including cows, sheep, goats, and buffalo, which produce large amounts of methane. Livestock produce methane during their digestive process (enteric fermentation) and through their manure. The EPA considers these emissions to be human-caused because this livestock is cultivated by human beings. The EPA believes that emissions from agriculture can be lowered by altering how farmers feed livestock and manage manure.
3. Landfills and wastewater treatment plants managing human waste from businesses and households also generate methane. In the United States, landfills were the third largest source of human-caused methane emissions in 2014. The EPA states that emissions can be lowered by implementing methane capturing systems at landfills and has promulgated rules to limit methane emissions from landfills.^[3][4]

Methane emissions related to natural gas[edit]

Methane can be released at several points during the natural gas production cycle. Producers typically use the following categories to discuss methane emissions:

1. Fugitive emissions refer to the methane that leaks unintentionally from natural gas production equipment such as pumps and valves.
2. Vented emissions refer to methane that may be intentionally released during the natural gas production process due to safety concerns. These practices are known as venting, a process by which gas is released into the air without being burned, and flaring, a process by which flammable natural gas is burned under controlled conditions primarily for safety reasons, including the prevention of fires or explosions.
3. Uncombusted emissions refer to the methane that does not burn when natural gas is burned off during the natural gas production process.

Natural gas is produced at natural gas wells and at oil wells (this is known as associated gas). Technological advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led to increased natural gas production in the United States. Increased natural gas production has increased the attention on methane emissions, especially fugitive emissions.^[25]

Map from NASA showing average background methane concentrations from 2003 to 2009 (dark colors are lower than average; lighter colors are higher)

Fugitive emissions have been discussed in the context of a "hot spot" of methane emissions that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) identified above the Four Corners region—a region consisting of the southwestern corner of Colorado, the southeastern corner of Utah, the northeastern corner of Arizona, and the northwestern corner of New Mexico. A 2016 NASA survey of that spot found that "just 10 percent of the individual methane sources are contributing half of the emissions." NASA attributed most of these to leaks from natural gas wells, pipelines, processing plants, and storage tanks. The study states, however, that the researchers could not pinpoint the exact locations of the methane leaks. A group of oil and gas industry trade associations criticized NASA's survey for not looking into causes outside of the oil and natural gas industry. "The measurements represent a snapshot in time, focused only on oil and natural gas sites and not other known human and natural methane sources in the area."^{[26][27][28][29][30]}

Natural sources of methane emissions[edit]

Wetlands are the largest producer of natural methane emissions.

The EPA estimates that natural sources, such as wetlands, oceans, sediments, and wildfires, produce 37 percent of total methane emissions each year. While the EPA attempts to quantify how much natural sources contribute to methane emissions, they qualify that their findings might not be exact because of the interconnectedness of methane emitters.^[31]

Wetlands[edit]

Wetlands are the largest producer of natural methane emissions. Wetlands, areas where the soil is largely saturated with water, affecting soil development and plant and animal life, cover about 5 percent of the earth's surface. Wetlands include swamps, some meadows, bogs, fens, and prairie potholes, among others areas. High-latitude wetlands tend to emit less methane than tropical wetlands. Methane is produced by bacteria that thrive in anaerobic (or oxygen-free) and moist environments. These bacteria survive by decomposing dead plant material, during which methane is released.^[31][32]

Other natural sources[edit]

Two other significant natural sources of methane include termites and oceans. A termite produces a small amount of methane each day during digestion. Microorganisms in a termite's gut help digest cellulose and produce methane as a byproduct. Methane emissions from termites increase as termite populations increase worldwide. According to a 2006 study in the scientific journal Nature, approximately 23 million tons of methane—12 percent of natural methane emissions worldwide—come from termites each year. Another natural source is oceans. About 75 percent of methane emissions from oceans is produced in deep sediment layers along coastal areas. Microbes in the ocean produce the methane, which mixes with surrounding water. After a period of time, the methane is released from ocean surfaces into the atmosphere. According to the journal Nature, oceans produce 19 million tons of methane each year.^[33]

Methane emissions data[edit]

To fulfill the United States' commitment as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the EPA undertakes an annual study of greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA reviews over 200 source categories and looks at the emissions from each source. While in 2014 the natural gas sector contributed the most methane emissions, from 1990 to 2014, methane emissions from the natural gas sector decreased by almost 15 percent while natural gas drilling activity increased by 31.5 percent over the same period. The following data are from the EPA's 2016 inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and show methane emissions by sector in 2014.^[11][34]

Scientific studies[edit]

Scientific studies on methane[edit]

There have been several studies attempting to quantify the oil and gas industry's methane emissions. Measuring methane emissions is a fairly new discipline, and as such a consensus has not been reached on how best to measure these emissions. As of November 2016, there had been several major scientific studies attempting to quantify methane emissions, with major differences in the studies' findings. Summaries of the studies are available below.

• An October 2016 study by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and published in the journal Nature found that global methane emissions from oil, coal, and natural gas development were 60 percent greater than their 2007 levels and accounted for between approximately 20 percent and 25 percent of total global methane emissions—between 132 million and 165 million tons of the 623 million tons of naturally and human-caused methane emissions each year. From 2007 to 2013, methane emissions rose by approximately 28 million tons each year. Scientists found that energy development was responsible for a larger portion of global methane emissions compared to what was found in previous studies, though technological improvements at facilities have caused a decline in methane leaks since the 1980s. The 2016 study also found that higher methane emissions from energy development were not responsible for the total increase in global methane emissions since 2007. Rather, natural and human-caused microbial sources of methane were viewed as the main factors in rising methane emissions. These microbial sources accounted for between 364 million and 419 million tons of methane each year—between 58 percent and 67 percent of global methane emissions released in the atmosphere each year.^[35]
• A February 2016 study in Geophysical Research Letters used both satellite images and surface observations of methane emissions to estimate that methane emissions had increased by 30 percent from 2002 to 2014, a much higher estimate than in the EPA's 2014 greenhouse gas emission inventory, which showed a net decline of 5.57 percent from 1999 to 2014. The study did not attribute the increase to any source but did allude to the growth in natural gas production as a potential source. The study also stated that a large portion of the emissions came from the central United States. The lead author on the study was Alex Turner from Harvard University.^[36]
• A March 2016 study in Science used ice core samples and air samples to reconstruct a history of global methane emissions. The authors found that methane emissions leveled off around 1990 before increasing again around 2006. The authors stated that the post-2006 increase was likely emitted from the agriculture sector. Hinrich Schaefer from the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research led the study.^[37][38]
• A March 2016 study in the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics measured methane and ethane concentrations between the ground and upper layers of the earth's atmosphere. The scientists reviewed ethane concentrations because ethane emissions have been shown to correlate with methane emissions. The study concluded that "at least 40% of the worldwide methane concentration increase after 2007 have to be attributed to the oil and gas sector and that the emissions took place in the northern hemisphere." Petra Hausmann of Germany’s Karlsruhe Institute of Technology led the study.^[39][40]
• A June 2016 study in Geophysical Research Letters used methane emissions data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to estimate the impact of temperature changes on emissions from 1986 to 2015. The study found "little change in long-term methane emissions despite significant Arctic warming over that time period." Further, the study stated that there were short-term increases in methane emissions, especially during the fall and winter, but that these short-term increases "will likely have little impact on global atmospheric methane levels in the long-term." The lead author on the study was Colm Sweeney at the University of Colorado.^[41][42]
• A 2014 study by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that the use of fracking and horizontal drilling in natural gas production led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including methane emissions, in the United States. The study found that "an important reason for a reduction of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in the United States" is "the rapid deployment of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, which has increased and diversified the gas supply." The IPCC stated that some studies have found that specific greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by one-half as more power plants use natural gas.^[43][44]

Measuring methane[edit]

Researchers have two methods to measure atmospheric methane. The first is a top-down measurement. Top-down readings are "downwind ambient concentration" measures or measures of methane in the atmosphere taken from above the ground. These emission measurements can be taken directly or calculated using data from satellites. Then, using meteorological data and assumptions regarding the emissions from different sources, a final measurement can be calculated. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), top-down studies have the benefit of not being subject to sampling bias, but they do rely on meteorology. Top-down studies tend to find higher emission figures, but bottom-up studies could have a sampling bias.^[45][46][47]

A view of natural gas wells in Texas taken by researchers as they measured methane concentrations.

The second method used to measure methane emissions is the bottom-up approach. This method evaluates each emission source, either through direct measurements or through estimates. These measurements are then summed. The bottom-up approach is used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is the standard practice for calculating other emissions. According to the NREL, bottom-up studies have the advantage of being more precise, but bottom-up studies could have the sampling bias. The following chart summarizes the advantages and limitations of both techniques.^[46][47]

It is important to understand how scientists take these measurements before comparing the various studies that estimate methane emission levels. Environmentalists maintain that a leakage range of 3 percent or higher of natural gas could erase the climate benefits that come with increased natural gas use. Industry groups, meanwhile, argued that methane emissions from natural gas wells that have been fracked have fallen nearly 79 percent since 2005.^[45][48]

Social cost of methane[edit]

In 2015, the EPA proposed assigning a cost to methane emissions, a measurement known as the social cost of methane. The measure is meant to put a monetary price on methane emissions to account for methane's impact on global warming and climate change. The EPA proposed that the cost of methane ranged between $580 per metric ton and $3,500 per metric ton for the year 2020 calculated in 2012 dollars. The year 2025 cost of methane would be between $700 per metric ton and $4,000 per metric tons. The EPA estimated that its methane rule will cost the oil and natural gas industries between $170 million and $180 million in 2020 while producing $120 million in health and environmental benefits, primarily in the form of fewer impacts from global warming. Critics of the measurement have argued that the EPA relies on out of date models that overstate the impact of methane emissions on rising global temperatures, overestimates the potential benefits of reducing methane emissions, and ignores the net impact of the methane rule on the U.S. economy, which includes $100 million in costs per year in 2020 and over $150 million in costs per year in 2025. As a result, the EPA's estimate overlooks the short-term costs of its rule in favor potential long-term benefits, many of which are uncertain and difficult to calculate accurately.^{[49][50][51][52]}

Regulation[edit]

Federal regulation[edit]

In June 2013, President Barack Obama (D) released his Climate Action Plan, which paved the way for the Clean Power Plan, the New Source Performance Standards, and the subsequent methane regulation. The Climate Action Plan also reaffirmed President Obama's 2009 pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The EPA has stated that it hopes its efforts to curb methane emissions will also limit other emissions including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can create ground-level ozone (smog), and other air toxins (e.g., benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene).^{[53][54][55][56][57]}

Natural gas pipelines

In March 2017, the EPA under President Donald Trump (R) withdrew a request that oil and gas producers report information about their methane emissions to the agency. The EPA under the Obama administration requested that oil and gas producers submit data on methane emissions from existing oil and gas wells as part of its regulations to limit methane emissions. The agency previously sent letters to approximately 15,000 oil and gas operators. The information requested included emissions numbers, types of equipment at all onshore production facilities, sources of methane emissions, and emission control technologies or practices used by the industry. On March 1, 2017, eleven states sent a letter to the EPA asking the agency to reverse the requests: Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.^[6][58][59]

On April 19, 2017, the EPA announced it would formally review and rescind the methane rule. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (R) said that the agency would not enforce the June 3, 2017, date by which regulated oil and gas operators would have to submit compliance plans for reducing methane emissions. Additionally, the EPA will open a new comment period for interested parties to comment on the 2016 methane rule, which will be halted 90 days after June 3, 2017.^[60]

2016 regulations[edit]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the final version of a regulation aimed at decreasing methane emissions in May 2016. The regulation is part of the EPA's New Source Performance Standards and applies to new oil and gas operations or ones that are altered after the regulation is finalized. As of November 4, 2016, the EPA had not released draft methane regulations for existing oil and gas operations. The EPA expects this new rule to cut methane emissions by between 6.9 million tons and 11 million tons of methane by 2025. The new methane rule will cover around 15,000 wells across the United States and will require oil and gas producers to limit emissions from wells, pumps, and compressors as well as along the routes used to transport oil and natural gas. Environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), argued that the rule was a good first step but did not go far enough because the rule did not cover the entire system around extracting oil and natural gas. Industry groups, meanwhile, argued that methane emissions from natural gas wells that have been fracked have fallen nearly 79 percent since 2005 and thus the new rule was expensive and unnecessary. Additionally, critics of the rule argued that the regulation was unnecessary because is it in the commercial interest of oil and natural gas producers to capture these emissions because the emissions would otherwise be lost product. Environmental groups have responded that the industry is not capturing enough emissions, however, and regulatory action is needed. The methane rule is also the result of a 2012 lawsuit where seven states sued the EPA for "failing to issue new guidelines to curb methane emissions, a greenhouse gas that may be linked to climate change."^[61][62][63]

The EPA predicted that this rule would cost $320 million in 2020 and $530 million in 2025.^{[64][65][66][67][68]}

Since the EPA finalized the rule, at least 15 states and a dozen energy groups filed legal challenges against the rule; West Virginia and agencies representing 12 other states or state agencies filed a lawsuit against the EPA. The petitioners argued that the emissions limits would place additional costs on oil and gas developers, which would effectively raise consumer costs. Texas and North Dakota filed their own lawsuits. Furthermore, the states argued that the EPA went beyond its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act when the agency wrote the rule. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is leading the lawsuit, argued that the EPA has ignored how the oil and gas industry has voluntarily reduced its methane emissions in the past decade. In addition to West Virginia, the lawsuit was joined by Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin as well as the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.^{[69][70][71][72]}

Criticisms of methane regulations[edit]

Arguments against the methane rule include the following.

• The rule is an ineffective means to address climate change and/or climate change is not an issue worth addressing.^[73]

Some individuals and groups, including scientists, have rejected the idea of human-made climate change completely. Others, including scientists, have claimed that human-made climate change is occurring, but that the policies intended to combat it are misguided or counter-productive. Critics of the methane rule who support government action on climate change have argued that the government should target other sources of emissions like the agricultural industry; the largest source of methane emissions was the domestic livestock industry in 2012.^[74]

Given the Obama administration's other climate change mitigation strategies—the Clean Power Plan and landfill regulations—critics argue that the methane rule will further increase energy prices while doing little to combat climate change.

• The rule is unnecessary because methane emissions are already decreasing without government involvement.

The EPA found that methane emissions from natural gas systems had decreased by 15 percent from 1990 to 2014. Additionally, methane emissions from oil and gas production had decreased by 40 percent from 2006 to 2012.^[75][74]

Support for the methane regulations[edit]

Supporters of the methane regulations have made the following arguments.

• The rule will protect public health by reducing the "pollution linked to cancer and other serious health effects."^[76][77]

The rule is expected to limit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can create ground-level ozone (smog). According to the EPA, ozone has been linked to negative impacts on lung health including the increased rate of asthma attacks, increased development of asthma, and early death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes. The rule is also expected to limit other air toxins such as benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. The EPA said that these toxins were linked to "known or suspected to cause cancer and other serious health effects."^[76][57]

• The rule is "an essential part of an overall strategy to address climate change."^[57][78]

According to the EPA, climate change will negatively impact all Americans as weather events, including droughts and storms cause insurance and food prices to increase. Further, the EPA has argued that climate change's impacts will have an outsized impact on those living in poverty, children, people with heart or lung diseases, and the elderly.^[57]

• The rule will place greater burdens on the fracking industry and thus lead to less or no fracking.

Some environmental groups have argued that stronger fracking regulations, such as stronger requirements for well construction and the disposal of waste water, are needed not only ensure some environmental protections for air and water quality but also to make fracking less economically viable so that the process is eventually ended. Other environmental groups have argued that the rule does not go far enough and have called for federal, state, and local bans on fracking.^[79]

Regulating methane emissions from landfills[edit]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the final version of a new set of rules regulating methane emissions from new, modified, and existing landfills in July 2016. According to the EPA, "the final rules are expected to reduce methane emissions by an estimated 334,000 tons a year beginning in 2025." The rules have important implications for the Clean Power Plan, another EPA rule that aims to limit carbon emissions from power plants, because both rules are based on the authority granted to the EPA under the Clean Air Act. Because of this, the landfill rules are expected to be challenged in court as an alleged expansion of the EPA's authority. Although the landfill rules do not expand the EPA's authority as much as the Clean Power Plan, any legal outcome for the landfill rules will set a precedent for determining the legality of the Clean Power Plan.^[80]

State regulation[edit]

California[edit]

On September 19, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill regulating flatulence from dairy cows and other animals in addition to other measures. Under the new law, the California Air Resources Board is allowed to regulate bovine flatulence if there are “practical ways to reduce the cows’ belching and breaking wind.” The law is designed to get California to reduce the state’s methane emissions by 40 percent before the year 2030. To justify the new law, Brown cited the theory of human-made climate change and the role that greenhouse gases such as methane may contribute to global warming. Supporters of the bill, including environmental groups, have argued that the law would help reduce pollution that harms human health. Opponents of the bill, including agricultural groups, have argued that the law would force dairy farms to close or move out of state, causing job losses.^[81][82]

Environmental impacts[edit]

Environmental impacts[edit]

The increase in natural gas production across the United States due in part to technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") has led to concerns over the potential effects of methane on public health and safety, and the environment. There are concerns that methane could be contaminating both drinking water and the air in addition to concerns over methane's impact on climate change. Because the EPA considers methane to be nontoxic, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not regulate methane in the workplace as contaminant, there are currently no federal standards for methane levels in drinking water. Some states, however, have regulations affecting the amount of methane that can be released during industrial activities. Additionally, the EPA proposed federal regulations to limit methane emissions from the oil and gas sector as a means to mitigate climate change.^[1][83]

Drinking water concerns[edit]

See also: Water pollution

The stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle
Click to enlarge.

2016 EPA study on fracking[edit]

See also: The EPA study on fracking and drinking water resources (2016)

On December 13, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final report requested by Congress in 2010 on the impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on drinking water resources. The EPA report stated that there was "scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States under some circumstances." An earlier draft version of the report, released in June 2015, concluded that fracking had not resulted in any widespread or systemic impact on drinking water quality. That conclusion was deleted in the report's final version. Instead, according to Tom Burke, EPA Deputy Administrator, "We [the EPA] found scientific evidence of impacts to drinking water resources at each stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle."^[84] According to the report, the agency based its study on 1,200 scientific sources, peer review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and input from federal, state, local, tribal, and industry officials.^[85][86] However, the EPA acknowledged that its findings were limited in scope, reporting that "uncertainties and data gaps limited the EPA's ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally."

The December 2016 report is a finalized version of an interim report issued by the EPA in 2015. To read more about the interim report, see this article.

Findings[edit]

The EPA concluded that, in some circumstances, poorly constructed drilling wells and incorrect wastewater management affected drinking water resources, particularly near drilling sites. According to the report, effects on drinking water "ranged in severity, from temporary changes in water quality to contamination that made private drinking wells unusable." Instances where drinking water resources were more vulnerable included the following:

The report focused on the potential impact on water sources during five stages of the fracking process:^[85][86]

• The acquisition of water to be used for fracking
• The mixing of chemical additives and water to make fracking fluids
• The injection of fracking fluids into a production well to create and enlarge fractures in the targeted production zone.
• The collection of wastewater that returns through a well after the injection of fracking fluids
• The management of wastewater through disposal or reuse.

Reactions[edit]

• The American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents the oil and natural gas industry, criticized the EPA report as misleading. "It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door. The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports, and peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process. Decisions like this amplify the public's frustrations with Washington," said API Upstream Director Erik Milito. Milito further stated, "Fortunately, the science and data clearly demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources. Unfortunately, consumers have witnessed five years and millions of dollars expended only to see a conclusion based in science changed to a conclusion based in political ambiguity."^[88]

• Energy in Depth, a website established by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an oil and gas industry group, endorsed the EPA's conclusion, which it argues reinforces its view that there is no systematic impact from fracking, but also criticized the EPA's role in the report. A spokesperson for the website said, "EPA’s report blows apart the anti-fracking campaign’s most common claim, namely that hydraulic fracturing is polluting groundwater all across America" but that the "EPA did its best to inject politics into this good news by inflating concerns about groundwater, no doubt as a parting thank-you gift to the ‘Keep It In the Ground’ movement." The Keep It In the Ground movement refers to a collection of individuals, legislators, and organizations that oppose future oil and natural gas drilling.^[84][89]

• Food and Water Watch, an environmental group that opposes fracking, said the report confirmed its view that fracking contaminates drinking water. According to Wenonah Hauter, the group's executive director, "The EPA has confirmed what we’ve known all along: fracking can and does contaminate drinking water. We are pleased that the agency has acted on the recommendations of its Science Advisory Board and chosen [sic] be frank about the inherent harms and hazards of fracking. Today the Obama administration has rightly prioritized facts and science, and put public health and environmental protection over the profit-driven interests of the oil and gas industry."^[90]

• The Sierra Club, an environmental group that opposes fracking, said the report confirmed its view that fracking negatively affects drinking water. According to the group's official statement, "The Sierra Club applauds the EPA for its science-based fracking report, confirming what so many already knew; fracking presents a clear and present threat to our water, our public health, and our communities. For far too long, communities around the country have faced the daily threat of contaminated water, earthquakes, and an uncertain future due to fracking, all while oil and gas companies peddled the false claim that the process was safe. Today’s report ends this charade. No longer will families be told a lie as their health and safety are threatened."^[91]

2015 Duke University study[edit]

A September 2015 study from researchers at Duke University found that fracking operations used 250 billion gallons of water from 2005 to 2014, which accounted for less than 1 percent of all water use nationwide. During that time, fracking also produced 210 billion gallons of wastewater. The study also found that "compared to other energy extraction methods, fracking is less water-intensive in the long run" because less water is used for each unit of energy that is produced. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Duke University Energy Initiative.^[92][93][94] A 2014 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed water well samples from both the Marcellus and Barnett shales, located in Pennsylvania and Texas, respectively. Researchers found that higher-than-expected levels of hydrocarbon gases, including methane, had not been caused by fracking, or horizontal drilling, but by well integrity problems. Researchers gathered 113 samples from Pennsylvania and found seven instances of fugitive gas contamination, known as elevated hydrocarbon levels. In Texas, 20 wells were sampled, and one instance of fugitive gas contamination was found. Of these eight cases, four were identified by the researchers as having likely been caused by poor well cementing, not fracking. Three cases were associated with faulty casing, and the final well experienced underground well failure. The study also found that methane in wells above the Marcellus Shale occurred naturally and was not the product of fracking.^[95][96]

A 2015 publication in Science reviewed 11,309 water wells across Pennsylvania and found that "background levels of methane in the water are unrelated to the location of hundreds of oil and gas wells that tap hydraulically fractured, or fracked, rock formations." This study contradicted earlier studies that had used smaller water well sample sizes—between 60 water wells and 114 water wells—to conclude that "wells closer to fracking sites had higher levels of methane." The authors of the 2015 study criticized the earlier studies for using wells that were known to have been poorly constructed, which could have caused methane to migrate into drinking water wells. The authors of the earlier studies, meanwhile, criticized the 2015 study because the data came from an oil and gas company (Chesapeake Energy Corp.) and those data were collected in such a way as to potentially lead to lower methane measurements. According to the 2015 Science article, "for all their disagreements, scientists on both sides of the fracking debate agree that it is very unlikely that microfracturing of rock formation itself contributes to the vertical migration of gases."^[97][98]

State government agencies have studied the impact of fracking on drinking water within their states. A January 2011 study by regulators at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources did not find "a single instance where ground has been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing operations" in the approximately 80,000 wells that were fracked in the state as of January 2011. A September 2011 study by regulators at the New York Department of Environmental Conservation found that it was "highly unlikely that groundwater contamination would occur by fluids escaping from the wellbore for hydraulic fracturing." Additionally, regulators in 15 states testified that groundwater contamination as a result of fracking processes "has not occurred." In a September 2012 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, regulatory officials in Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas testified that state investigations did not find fracking as a cause of groundwater contamination within their states.^{[99][100][101][102]}

Computer models of concentration of methane at the Earth's surface

Air pollution concerns[edit]

Most people are exposed to low levels of methane when they breathe outside air. Limited exposure to low levels of methane is not considered harmful to human health. If someone is exposed to oxygen levels of less than 15 percent due to the presence of high amounts of methane, the health effects can include tiredness, dizziness, and headaches. Individuals who are exposed to higher levels of methane include those who work at an oil or gas field, a fracking operation, a wastewater treatment plant, a landfill, a coal-powered plant, or a facility that manufactures other chemicals by using methane. There are no concerns that methane is linked to cancer or will have long-term effects on organ health, while less is known about the effects of methane on reproductive systems.^{[83][103][104]}

The role of fracking in spurring natural gas development and use has been linked to decreases in air pollutants, particularly nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. In August 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection found that while methane emissions from the natural gas sector in the state decreased by roughly 12 percent from 2012 to 2014, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from electric generating units also decreased from 2011 to 2014 by 18 percent and 17 percent, respectively. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide are considered extremely hazardous substances by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 and are regulated under the Clean Air Act for their negative impact on human health. The department attributed the emissions reductions to "the steady rise in the production and development of natural gas, the greater use of natural gas, lower allowable emissions limits, installation of control technology and the deactivation of certain sources."^[105]

Climate change[edit]

Compared to carbon dioxide—the most common greenhouse gas emitted by humans—methane has a much shorter lifetime, which is one reason advocates of natural gas push the fuel as a more environmentally friendly alternative to other fossil fuels. Methane does, however, trap more radiation than carbon dioxide and the EPA states that over a 100-year period, pound for pound methane has a 25 times larger impact on climate change than carbon dioxide. See the Scientific studies on methane section for more on how the EPA and others view the relationship between climate change and methane.^[3][4][106]

See also[edit]

• 

  Energy policy in the United States

• 

  Fracking in the United States

• 

  Glossary of energy terms

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Energy Policy Background Energy policy in the United States • Fracking in the United States • Energy use in the United States • Electricity prices in the United States • Historic state electricity prices • Historic state natural gas prices • State energy production rankings • Environmental Policy • State environmental policy pages • Environmental policy in the United States • Energy and Environmental News Terms Abandoned mine drainage • Biofuels • Biomass • BTEX • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Coal • Coalbed methane • Compressed natural gas • Crude oil • Directional drilling • Directional well • Electrical grid • Energy siting • Ethanol • Flare • Flowback • Frac sand • Frack fluid • Fracking • Geosteering • Geothermal energy • Horizontal drilling • Hydrocarbons • Hydroelectric energy • Liquid Petroleum Gases • Megawatt • Megawatt hour • Methane • Mineral rights • Natural gas • Natural gas liquids • Natural gas storage • Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials • Nuclear power • Oil shale • Petrochemicals • Petroleum • Petroleum systems • Produced water • Proppants • Public Trust Doctrine • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Seismicity • Shale gas • Shale play • Slick water frac • Slurry • Solar energy • Traditional energy resources • Vertical drilling • Volatile organic compounds • Wellbore • Wind energy State energy information Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming State fracking policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming