Category Archives: Oil

Wyoming’s Energy Strategy A Potential Step Toward Improved Oil And Gas Regulations

By | Bio | Published: May 20, 2013

Source: Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile

Wyoming is one of the leading energy states in the country. It is the top overall energy exporter in the U.S., the third leading producer of natural gas, and number eight in oil production. In fact, if Wyoming were a country, it would rank tenth in the world in overall energy production.

It makes sense then that Wyoming would want to develop an energy strategy to ensure that these resources are developed wisely. A state that is also home to the nation’s first national park (Yellowstone) and a thriving outdoor recreation and tourism economy would not want one of its leading economic drivers to negatively impact another, or to harm the health of its citizens.

There is strong potential in the strategy released last week by Governor Matt Mead and his staff. The 47 policy prescriptions in the “Leading the Charge” document are broad and varied, but the ones pertaining to oil and gas regulation appear promising. These include:

  • Establishing a strong, scientifically-valid groundwater quality baseline testing program that gives landowners important information about potential impacts from oil and gas drilling.
  • An air quality management strategy and review of state flaring policies that can take into account the pollution problems in Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin and seek to make improvements there and across the state.
  • Efforts to carefully examine the potential safe reuse of produced water from energy production.
  • Subjecting the state’s oil and gas regulations to a complete review by a broad group of experts through the nationally respected STRONGER process.
  • A review of state bonding requirements that can ensure well owners have the financial wherewithal to adequately plug wells and reclaim areas where drilling has occurred so the state is not left holding the bag for so-called orphan wells. Read More »

Also posted in Natural Gas | Tagged | 1 Response

The Oil And Gas Industry’s Assault On Renewable Energy

By | Bio | Published: April 29, 2013

This commentary was originally posted on our EDF Voices blog.

Source: ali_pk/flickr

Renewable energy enjoyed a record year in 2012 – the U.S. wind industry surpassed 50,000 megawatts of electrical power generation capacity and solar proved once again to be the fastest growing energy source in the United States. That's a milestone worth celebrating, since greater use of clean, homegrown energy resources creates jobs, cuts foreign oil imports, stabilizes prices, makes our system more resilient and reduces harmful pollution. The list of benefits is vast. So who could possibly be upset?

Well, some utilities that own old and often dirty fossil fuel power plants are upset that renewables are making it harder for their older, polluting units to stay in business. Then there are oil and gas industry association leaders like American Petroleum Institute (API) president Jack Gerard, who often talk about wanting a “level playing field” – implying that policies promoting renewable energy are unfair to fossil fuels.

Don’t be fooled. Renewable investments pale in comparison to the amount of money poured into fossil fuel companies since 1918 to fatten their bottom lines and crowd out competition. Fossil fuels have received around 75 times more subsidies than clean energy. Up to 2011 (adjusted for inflation), the oil and gas industry received $446.96 billion in cumulative energy subsidies from 1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just $5.93 billion. An industry that has been enjoying federal tax subsidies for over a century has no standing to argue for a level playing field.

Heavily subsidized fossil fuels may have made sense 100 years ago, when we were racing to build the energy infrastructure of the last century. But today we're racing to build the clean energy infrastructure of the new century — and we need to support a new set of industries. And we're making real progress.

So it is no surprise that we are seeing a well-funded, industry-backed effort to roll back the policies that have been so successful in developing and deploying renewables. Take, for example, the latest assault on a series of state laws around the country that have increased the amount of clean, renewable energy these states produce.

Front Groups do the Dirty Work for Oil and Gas Industry

So far, 29 states have implemented Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) programs that require increased production of energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. They’ve been adopted in red states and blue – from California to Texas to Maine – through democratic processes and with popular support. RPS programs have helped jumpstart an industry that is spurring economic development, creating American jobs, boosting energy independence and cutting our carbon footprint.

A Bloomberg article released last week details how the oil and gas industry, through some self-described free market organizations that they fund, are trying to engineer a legislative massacre of these policies in more than a dozen states.

The groups may sound familiar: American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which is currently pushing legislation around the country that would mandate the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems, and The Heartland Institute, which ran a billboard campaign last year comparing global warming "admitters" to Osama bin Laden and Charles Manson. Both have long opposed sensible energy policies. And their funders will sound familiar, too: the oil, gas and coal industries and their owners like the Koch Brothers.

Read More »

Also posted in clean energy, Climate, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

New York City’s Air Is Well On Its Way To Becoming Cleaner Than Ever

By | Published: April 4, 2013

NYC Clean Heat is halfway to achieving its goal of reducing harmful heating oil soot pollution in New York City by 50 percent by the end of 2013.

The NYC Clean Heat program experienced tremendous growth in 2012. The Mayoral announcement in June 2012 marked the official transition from the pilot phase to full implementation of the NYC Clean Heat program, which aims to clean the air in New York City by helping buildings convert from highly-polluting No. 6 and No. 4 heating oils to the cleanest available fuels. The heating oils used in one percent of New York City buildings create more soot pollution than all the cars and trucks in the City combined – that’s why upgrading these buildings to cleaner heating fuel is the single largest step New Yorkers can take to solve local air pollution.

The goal of NYC Clean Heat is to cut heating oil soot pollution in half by the end of 2013. NYC’s Department of Health estimates that achieving this goal will result in over 120 lives saved each year and prevent hundreds of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.

I’ve been a part of the NYC Clean Heat team for almost two years now, and I can tell you that I am floored by the progress we’ve made. For instance: 

  • By the end of 2012, over 1,200 boilers – well beyond the number of conversions the regulations required – have switched to natural gas or ultra-low sulfur No. 2 (some of the cleanest available fuels), and over 2,000 additional boilers in line to convert.
  • These 1,200 conversions have resulted in over 150 tons of reduction of soot pollution, or particulate matter (PM2.5), which is equivalent to removing over 800,000 light-duty passenger vehicles from the road for 1 year. That’s over 13 billion miles travelled!
  • NYC Clean Heat won the 2013 Citizen Budget Commission’s Award for Public Service Innovation.

Why is all of this important? Approximately 1,500 buildings still need to complete conversions in 2013. Also, roughly 2,000 permits for No. 6 oil are set to expire before March 2014, representing 232 tons of soot pollution. Because this week is National Public Health Week, we are more aware than ever of what reducing air pollution in New York City will mean. NOW is the time to take action. Read More »

Also posted in New York | Tagged | Comments closed

Should America Get Behind The Fuels Of The Future Or The Past?

By | Bio | Published: March 22, 2013

One of Yogi Berra’s famed quotes is about to apply to America’s energy policy:  “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”

The truth is, America’s been staring at a fork in the road for a few decades.  Every president since Nixon has talked about freeing the country from its dependence on foreign oil.  And each recent administration has understood that our energy policy affects more than the price of a gallon of gas or a kilowatt of electricity.  It affects job growth, technological innovation and environmental progress (or decline).

The last few months of the budget and debt debate gives us a good picture of the paths America could take.

One path, embraced for years by both parties, entails government investments in new, clean, efficient and affordable energy.  It harnesses the creative talents of our top scientists, engineers, businesspeople and research centers.

The other, most recently articulated in Representative Paul Ryan’s budget, is driven only by a doctrinaire obsession with cutting government – no matter what we sacrifice in doing so.  According to that view,  the government need not invest, because the private sector has it all figured out.  That’s a stunning philosophy given that some of the most important breakthroughs – the Internet, our space program, wind and solar energy development – have happened because government and industry worked hand-in-hand.

The President recently called for a $2 billion Clean Energy Trust that would fund energy research and development.  That’s exactly the kind of thing we need in order to continue the clean energy technology revolution that will make it possible to reduce imports of foreign oil and weaken the threat of rising greenhouse gas emissions. The budget is tight, so how do we find the money for it?  By using money collected from oil companies when they drill for oil and gas on federal lands.  Put another way, we can use some of the proceeds from the fossil fuel industry to help accelerate the transition to a clean, low-carbon energy economy.  Read More »

Also posted in Innovation, Renewable Energy, Washington, DC | Tagged , | Comments closed

More To Come On Methane…

By | Bio | Published: December 6, 2012

Concerns around the impacts of methane emissions have reemerged in headlines, with the release of a methane leakage study about Boston. Published in the journal of Environmental Pollution a couple weeks ago, researchers from Boston University and Duke University measured atmospheric methane concentrations leaking from natural gas pipelines in Boston many of which are over a hundred years old. Another report issued last week by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (published in Environmental Research Letters) looked at the impact of shale gas production on greenhouse gas emissions.

When talking about harmful greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) usually gets most of the attention. Yet methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, is a short-lived greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2 – or around 72 times more potent over a 20-year time frame. Stakes are high for the scientific community to fully understand the implications of methane leakage rates. These reports help elevate the issue that methane leakage matters to the climate and air quality, but this is only part of the story.

Methane is potentially leaking from the entire natural gas supply chain — from wells, pipelines and storage facilities — and no one knows precisely how much is leaking and where the leaks are stemming from. Some reports estimate the total methane leakage rate occurring during natural gas production, transmission and distribution to range anywhere from 1 to 7.9 percent. At the same time, the data that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and everyone else rely on were collected 20 or more years ago.

A challenge for understanding the distribution of methane concentration data in Boston is that no one knows how to interpret the data yet. Maps of methane concentrations in the urban environment can be spurious. They may look scary, but are they? This and many other tough scientific questions still need to be answered, we are very early in the process of understanding how much methane is leaking and from where. The scientific community at large, including EDF and the authors of the Boston study, are committed to collecting the data necessary to addressing these concerns and to understanding the true climate impact of methane emissions.

EDF is working with leading academic researchers and industry leaders to conduct scientifically rigorous measurements of quantitative emissions across the natural gas supply chain from well to the end user. We are developing the methodologies where necessary to move past a ‘he said, she said’ conversation to one focused on data characterizing leak rates. The critical next step for us in using the increasingly robust data gathered from new innovative technologies is to precipitate a clear enough understanding of where the leaks are in the supply chain to catalyze a constructive conversation about what new policies and industry practices will be required to minimize methane leakage.

The first EDF fugitive methane report, focused on field measurements made at natural gas production sites, will be completed early next year under the leadership of the University of Texas Austin. EDF and our partners are using a diverse array of measurement techniques to characterize leak rates. We are also working to make basin-wide measurements within areas of natural gas production. Over the course of 2013 and early 2014, studies of emissions at other key components in the supply chain, including the local distribution system, will be completed and the data and conclusions released to the public.

EDF is actively campaigning to ensure that fugitive methane emissions from the natural gas industry are less than 1 percent of production in order to ensure that the climate benefits of natural gas are maximized. We see development of innovative, cost effective and accurate methane detection technologies and procedures as a necessary part of minimizing leak rates. Our view is that minimizing methane leakage is an important enough issue that we need to take the time to establish a scientific understanding of the underlying issues and by doing so defining effective well-targeted actions.

Also posted in Climate, EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Methane leakage, Natural Gas | Comments closed

ALEC & Heartland: Freedom Fighters?

By | Published: November 30, 2012

As we approach a new Congress, and a new Legislative Session here in Texas, the Heartland Institute and their pal the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are gearing up to reverse state renewable energy mandates across the country.

This comes as no surprise as ALEC has a reputation for supporting unpopular agendas, like current legislation it is pushing around the country that would mandate the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems. So while many Americans from differing political affiliations support an increase in renewables – a nearly unanimous 92% of voters, including 84% of Republicans – it seems fitting that ALEC would be on the opposing side.

While the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) are both members of ALEC, I wonder if they will join the ranks of Proctor & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods and a whole host of companies who have since parted ways with the “shadowy right-wing front group.”

And it’s not just ALEC that runs off its members. As we wrote back in April, GM announced they were pulling their funding from the Heartland Institute, citing Heartland’s climate change denial. Of course, weeks later Heartland doubled down on their denial with a series of billboards comparing climate change admitters to the likes of Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden.

So this ALEC-Heartland partnership is truly a match made in…well…

Adding to ALEC’s list of anti-environmental goals – including promoting legislation to kill climate policies and providing the framework for legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic coal ash – it now has its sights set on the 29 states that have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and mandates in place.

And in typical Orwellian fashion this fight is dubbed the “Electricity Freedom Act,” as they deem state standards requiring utilities to get a portion of their electricity from renewable power “essentially a tax on consumers of electricity.” James Taylor, the Heartland Institute’s senior fellow for environmental policy, said he was able to persuade most of ALEC’s state legislators and corporate members to push for a repeal of laws requiring more solar and wind power use on the basis of economics, claiming that, “renewable power mandates are very costly to consumers throughout the 50 states, and that alternative energy, renewable energy, is more expensive than conventional energy.”

But whose freedom are they really protecting and whose freedom are they hindering?

Read More »

Also posted in Climate, Washington, DC | Tagged , | Comments closed

EDF Provides Legal Support To Cities And Towns Fighting To Preserve Their Traditional Right To Zone Natural Gas Development

By | Bio | Published: September 19, 2012

A recent state court ruling in Pennsylvania was a huge win for local communities’ rights to make zoning decisions about natural gas development within their borders. As we’ve mentioned before, EDF fully supports the traditional rights of local communities to regulate this intensive industrial activity, much as they would any other commercial or industrial activity in their community.

Yesterday, EDF joined an amicus brief with Earthjustice and over a dozen other organizations to support a state court ruling, which recently overturned a state law curtailing local government regulation of natural gas development. The brief urges the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to uphold the lower court’s decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, which deemed a section of this year’s oil and gas omnibus Act 13 unconstitutional as to its preemption of local zoning control over oil and gas development. The state law would have stripped away local zoning laws, limited private property rights, and in the process, hampered towns’, cities’, municipalities’ and county governments’ ability to regulate shale gas development within their own, respective jurisdictions.

Act 13 of 2012 is a major legislative package that reforms Pennsylvania’s oil and gas laws to reflect the new realities of the shale gas boom in the Marcellus formation underlying much of the state. State agencies are conducting substantial rulemaking activities to implement sections of the law on topics including well site development, air quality, pipelines and wastewater management. EDF looks forward to working with state officials to ensure that these rules are fully protective of communities and the environment.

However, parts of Act 13 went in the wrong direction. In particular, section 3304 obligated all local zoning ordinances to conform to a list of requirements related to the siting and permitting of oil and gas development activities and infrastructure – altering pre-existing zoning arrangements where necessary. Several Pennsylvania townships and non-profits filed suit in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that this preemption of local zoning control violated several aspects of Pennsylvania’s constitution. Read More »

Also posted in Natural Gas, Pennsylvania | Comments closed

Strong Standards Are Needed To Protect Human Health From Harmful Air Pollution Emitted From Oil And Gas Activities

By | Published: March 30, 2012

Update: Please note that the EPA is now due to finalize the national emission standards for oil and gas activities by Tuesday, April 17.

On April 3, 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to finalize national emission standards to limit some of the harmful air pollutants discharged from a variety of oil and gas activities.   As Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has noted in past blogs, leaks, venting and flaring of natural gas from oil and gas activities contribute to ground-level ozone ("smog") and toxic air pollution.  As proposed, EPA's standards would reduce volatile organic compounds that contribute to smog by 25% and hazardous air pollutants by 30%, through the implementation of proven and highly cost-effective practices and technologies. 

Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities Linked to Unhealthy Levels of Ozone "Smog" Pollution

Extensive oil and gas development in parts of rural Wyoming and Utah, where little other industrial activity occurs, has led to dangerous ozone levels, higher than those recorded in some of the most heavily polluted cities. Last year, families in Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin suffered over forty days in which ozone concentrations exceeded the current health standard.  In Utah’s Uintah basin, residents experienced twice this number of unhealthy ozone days, with one monitor located in Ouray recording forty exceedances alone.

In 2009 then Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal requested EPA designate counties within the Upper Green River Basin as out of attainment with the current ozone health standard explaining the link between natural gas emissions and the serious ozone problems: 

"The State of Wyoming is also challenged by the need to reduce emissions from the natural gas industry which has not traditionally been regulated for ozone nonattainment problems….Therefore, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) has already identified the sources that require controls such as drill rigs, pneumatic pumps, dehydration units and small heaters."

EPA  in turn concluded “[t]he [Wyoming] AQD’s analysis provided with its recommendation shows that elevated ozone at the Boulder monitor is primarily due to local emissions from oil and gas development activities: drilling, production, storage, transport and treating of oil and natural gas.”

In Colorado and Texas, smog-forming emissions from the oil and gas industry have exceeded other major sources of pollution such as vehicles.   In 2008, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment concluded that the smog-forming emissions from oil and gas operations exceeded vehicle emissions for the entire state.  Similarly, a 2009 study found that summertime emissions of smog-forming pollutants from oil and gas sources in the Barnett Shale were roughly comparable to emissions from all of the motor vehicles in the Dallas Fort-Worth area.

Oil and Gas Activities Emit Benzene-A Known Carcinogen-and other Air Toxics

Venting, flaring and equipment leaks also emit hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, including hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde and benzene into the environment.  Elevated levels of benzene have been detected near gas production sites in Texas and Colorado. In 2010 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) measured acute concentrations of benzene that exceeded the state’s health-based risk levels at two exploration and production sites in the Barnett Shale in Texas. Research based on air samples taken from oil and gas sites in the Piceance Basin in Colorado in 2008 determined that emissions from well completions, dehydration units, and condensate tanks posed an elevated cancer risk to nearby residents. Similarly, atmospheric measurements collected by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that “oil and gas operations in the DJB (Denver-Julesburg Basin) could be the largest source of C6H6 (benzene) in Weld County.”

As oil and gas development continues to expand across the country, strong, national clean air standards are essential to protect public health.  EPA’s standards, which build on clean air measures already in place in states with extensive oil and gas activities, such as Colorado and Wyoming, are an important first step in strengthening clean air protections for human health and the environment.

Also posted in Climate, Natural Gas, Washington, DC | Comments closed

National Clean Air Standards For The Oil And Gas Industry Provide A Trifecta

By | Published: March 20, 2012

By: Peter Zalzal, EDF Staff Attorney, Climate & Air

Rigorous National Clean Air Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry are Needed to Protect the Health of Americans and our Communities

On April 3rd, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to finalize critically important standards to reduce harmful air pollution from oil and gas activities.  These standards are a trifecta: they protect human health and the environment, reduce waste of an important domestic energy source and save industry money through sales of recovered natural gas product.  For too long the industry has operated under insufficient, outdated standards that fail to protect Americans from the dangerous air pollution produced by oil and gas activities.

EPA’s proposed emission standards, which require companies to implement more efficient practices and technologies, will provide much-needed protections for human health and the environment and prevent extensive waste of a domestic energy resource.  In fact, these proposed measures will save approximately 180 billion cubic feet of natural gas, comparable to the amount of gas needed to provide heat to 2.7 million American homes for a year.    

Oil and gas facilities contribute to high levels of toxic air contaminants, ground-level ozone ("smog") and methane, a potent greenhouse gas.  Ground-level ozone has been linked to serious respiratory illnesses, including asthma in children and premature death.  High levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, have been detected at locations in Texas and Colorado. 

Major public health groups including the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, Trust for America’s Health and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America have urged EPA to finalize rigorous emission standards.

States with Strong Clean Air Standards Have Had Strong Growth in Oil and Gas Activities

Colorado and Wyoming have long carried out clean air protections similar to those now proposed by EPA.  Environmental Defense Fund evaluated key oil and gas economic indicators — operational rotary rig counts, producing natural gas wells and natural gas gross withdrawals — in Wyoming and Colorado and compared those with overall national data as well as data for other key oil and gas producing states. 

Between 2000 and 2009, both Wyoming and Colorado had the highest annual growth rates for gross withdrawals and the highest average annual growth in producing gas wells as compared to other major gas-producing states with less protective clean air standards on the books.  In short, both Wyoming and Colorado have had strong growth in oil and gas activity while important clean air standards have been in place.

Also posted in Climate, Natural Gas | Tagged , , | Comments closed

It Makes Dollars & “Sense” To Capture Air Emissions

By | Bio | Published: October 24, 2011

Oil and gas exploration and production is rapidly expanding across the U.S. due to technological developments that have made extraction of previously untapped unconventional resources such as shale gas feasible.

In fact, shale gas production “has gone from a negligible amount just a few years ago to being almost 30% of total U.S. natural gas production.” 

But national clean air standards covering these activities have not been updated since 1985 in one case and 1999 in another. They are limited, inadequate, and out of date, particularly given recent technological advances in this area. 

This poses a serious problem, since exploration and production activities emit numerous hazardous air pollutants and other airborne contaminants that threaten human health and the environment. Communities across the country are paying the price, suffering from air pollution in the absence of protective, comprehensive standards. 

In July, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new nationwide safeguards to reduce air pollution from upstream oil and gas production activities.  Recently, the public was given a chance to express their opinions on the issue at three hearings held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Denver, Colorado, and Arlington, Texas. EDF testified at all three. (Public written comments will be accepted through November 30th and EPA is required to issue a final rule by February 2012. You can submit comments online, via fax or through the mail. In your correspondence, please be sure to reference Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9456–2.)

I testified at the EPA hearing in Pittsburgh where compelling concerns were raised by many in the communities hard hit by air pollution impacts.  People in communities across Pennsylvania expressed concern that adequate protection from dangerous pollution in their home state is simply not in place. Some pleaded with the EPA to finalize new standards, others expressed anger that EPA has not done so already, and many fear that the new standards won’t be tough enough to keep their families safe.   

The individual who testified before me declared that when it comes to our health and that of our children, the costs of cleaning up harmful pollution should not factor into EPA’s decision-making. He got a standing ovation.

Of course, the hearing also featured industry representatives, some of whom echoed the position of the American Petroleum Institute (API) calling for more time to comment on the proposed standards and to delay their implementation.

Yet, the truth is that the proposed EPA rules will standardize many practices and technologies already being used in states such as Colorado and Wyoming, and elsewhere by natural gas companies. Further, these practices and technologies reduce gas losses, which results in greater recovery and sale of natural gas, and thus increased economic gains. The return on the initial investment for many of these practices is sometimes as short as a few months and almost always less than two years.  In these tough economic times, it would seem wise to eliminate waste, save money, and reduce environmental impact.

Based on EPA estimates of natural gas losses, industry lost more than $1 billion in profits in 2009 due to venting, flaring and fugitive emissions.  The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), with supporting data from EPA, estimates that around 40% of natural gas estimated to be vented and flared on onshore federal leases could be economically captured with currently available control technologies. Recouping these losses could increase federal royalty payments by $23 million annually, at a time when revenue is desperately needed.

The industry can demonstrate their commitment to bringing natural gas to market in an environmentally sound way by using best practices, acknowledging the benefits of these safeguards, and being proactive in helping them get adopted.

And, while EPA’s proposed rules are a great start, there is room for improvement (for more details, see EDF’s preliminary analysis of the regulations). Bottom line: it is critical that stronger clean air standards move forward.  They are vitally important to protect human health and the environment.

At the EPA hearing in Pittsburgh, the public demanded that EPA require industry to be more vigilant about health and safety, and reduce their environmental impact.  Considering the potential increased revenue of capturing more gas, advocating for strong clean air rules makes both dollars and “sense.”

Also posted in Natural Gas, Washington, DC | Comments closed