ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Regulations To Cut U.S. Methane Emissions

Climate Change: Effort targets releases from landfills and the natural gas and crude oil industries

by Cheryl Hogue
August 24, 2015 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 93, ISSUE 33

[+]Enlarge
Credit: Shutterstock
EPA’s proposed regulations in part target emission from new oil wells drilled through fracking.
09333-notw7-frackingcxd.jpg
Credit: Shutterstock
EPA’s proposed regulations in part target emission from new oil wells drilled through fracking.

To crank down U.S. emissions of methane, the Obama Administration is proposing to reduce releases of the potent greenhouse gas from landfills, crude oil and natural gas pipelines, and one type of oil well.

The action comes as governments around the world are racing to finish a new climate change agreement by December that includes pledges by nearly every country on Earth to control greenhouse gas releases. The proposed regulations would help President Barack Obama make good on his international commitment to slash U.S. emissions 26–28% below 2005 levels before 2025, despite opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress.

The proposals, which the Environmental Protection Agency rolled out in mid-August, take aim at methane that leaks from landfills loaded with municipal trash as well as some oil and gas operations. Under the proposals, landfill operators would have to dial back their methane emissions by one-third. Meanwhile, new or upgraded oil and gas pipelines and new oil wells drilled via hydraulic fracturing would have to meet new emission standards for methane, the main component of natural gas.

Taken together, these actions would trim U.S. methane emissions by 750,000 to 800,000 metric tons per year by 2025, EPA says. Because methane has a greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide, this is equivalent to cutting 20 million to 21 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2025, according to EPA estimates.

In addition, proposals for the oil and gas industry would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds—which are precursors to ground-level ozone, or smog—as well as hazardous air pollutants including benzene and xylene.

The proposals for the oil and gas sector “will encourage companies to reduce waste so they can save money and deliver more product to market,” says Sam Adams of the think tank the World Resources Institute.

Energy companies, manufacturers, and Republican leaders in Congress attacked EPA’s proposals on oil and gas extraction. “EPA’s own data show that methane emissions in the U.S. decreased by almost 15% between 1990 and 2013, yet EPA is forging ahead with this extraneous and unnecessary regulation,” says Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Advertisement
X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Linas (August 24, 2015 7:19 PM)
There are promising technologies currently being developed to directly convert methane to valuable products such as higher hydrocarbons, carbon-based nano-materials, and liquid fuels. Such technologies need to be encouraged by DOE and EPA to not only meet the EPA emissions target but do so profitably.
Chad (August 24, 2015 7:52 PM)
Dear Representative Smith:

If I reduce the rate at which I am violating your property rights by 15% over a generation, all is good, right? You have no right to complain, because I am harming you less than before?

Justice demands a bit more - a complete cessation of such violations AND restitution for all past violations, with interest and penalities. Would you prefer that?

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment