It was disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising, that Chesapeake Energy and three natural gas industry trade associations filed legal challenges to EPA’s new rule that requires assessment and public disclosure of the industry’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
I find it ironic that the industry that touts itself as the “low-carbon” fossil fuel is fighting efforts to require disclosure of its global warming pollution.
Learn more about this in our news release sent out earlier today.
After a 10-month process, the TCEQ finally ended the suspense regarding what emissions safeguards the oil and gas industry will have to follow in order to protect the citizens of Texas. On Wednesday, the TCEQ adopted a much, much weaker rule than the one it proposed in July (see details at the bottom of this post). The rule was dramatically scaled back to apply only to those living near the Barnett Shale near Dallas-Fort Worth and, miraculously, the process will begin anew to decide what protections will apply elsewhere.
If you are reading this, you are probably wondering what I think about the outcome. I’ll answer by telling you what I am going to tell my boss, who will surely ask how my efforts – scores of hours attending meetings, writing comments, coordinating and consulting with experts on this topic (as well as having to watch industry unrelentingly bully TCEQ staff) – translated into results.
It is a fair question given that I truly threw myself into this one. I convinced myself (and my boss) that – this time – it was going to be different. With all of the attention focused on the emissions from natural gas operations, including reports showing how the emissions from the oil and gas industry were much higher than everyone assumed, I thought this time we actually had a chance to help TCEQ do the right thing.
The most favorable answer I can give is that “it could have been worse.” Maybe, just maybe, had we not made the effort, the final rule might have been even worse. What issues went in favor of public health? The TCEQ did expand the proposed definition of “receptors” that must be protected to include hospitals, day cares, and certain businesses (although this definition is still less protective than many other agency rules). Oh, and in response to our expert modeler’s numerous examples showing that the agency’s modeling did not represent “worst-case” conditions as claimed, the TCEQ changed their description to “reasonable worst case” (while making numerous other changes that allowed far greater emissions of harmful pollutants than originally proposed). Sadly, that’s all I can say went in a positive direction.
The TCEQ’s initial proposal in July would have established a basic framework that provided greater assurances of protectiveness to the public. But industry firepower overwhelmed the TCEQ staff, which had little, if any, apparent support from their Commissioners. The final rule was gutted with so many exceptions and loopholes (see below) that it almost makes me wonder if there is sufficient environmental benefit left to justify the regulatory burden. Especially troubling was the number of sweeping changes made to the rule during a 6-week continuance, out of the public eye, during which time staff was asked to attempt to resolve industry concerns.
In the end, I have no choice but to admit that my time would have been better spent on something else. This story is yet one more example of why the legislature’s required sunset review of the TCEQ is so timely. It is time for the TCEQ to put the protection of public health and the environment first.
On this last point, State Representative Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) who serves on the state’s Sunset Advisory Commission, ably captured the situation in an interview on KUT’s feature “Letters to the Lege” this morning:
“In hearings we’ve held, we’ve heard complaints from all over the state … and there’s definitely an issue at the TCEQ when it comes to the response to citizen complaints. There’s no doubt about it. The EPA is seriously put out with the TCEQ and there’s a real standoff going on right now between the Perry administration and the federal government on how the TCEQ regulates pollutants in Texas. And in my opinion, we need to shake the agency up and make it more responsive to the public.”
At EDF, we completely agree.
Key Examples Of How The July 2010 Oil & Gas Permit by Rule Proposal Was Weakened:
Steven F. Hayward and Kenneth P. Green’s report “Texas Energy and the Energy of Texas” written for the Texas Public Policy Foundation and published last week is pseudo-economics underwritten by the Koch brothers (some of the world’s biggest polluters). The report simply ignores the health and economic costs of the pollution caused by coal production.
Most egregiously, the report claims that “only modest Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) reductions – if any – [will] be achieved by switching from coal to natural gas” (page 11). The fact is that in 2009, using data from the EPA’s public emissions database, natural gas power plants in Texas emitted 73% less NOx than did coal-fired power plants per unit of electricity produced. In addition, reducing Texas’ use of coal by switching to natural gas would reduce emissions of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) by 99.9% and eliminate 100% of power plant mercury emissions. These estimated environmental benefits say nothing of the economic benefits of new jobs related to natural gas exploration and production as well as increased royalties and taxes for the state.
Every year of delay in a switch to natural gas means Texas sends another $1.91 billion to out of state to coal companies in faraway places like Wyoming. It protracts the challenge to cities like Dallas-Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Houston and Austin to comply with federal clean air standards, making it harder for them to attract new businesses and increasing the cleanup burden for businesses already located in Texas.
I have one thing to say in response to Hayward and Green’s “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It” conclusion: Come down and tell that to the children losing funding for health, education and wellness programs, their mothers and fathers who fear losing their state jobs or the almost 4 million living with lifetime asthma in Texas.
We want to commend Lt. Governor David Dewhurst who announced his interest last week in increasing Texas’ use of its abundant natural gas resources by using market-based incentives to shift power plants from burning coal to natural gas.
This move would have a tremendous impact on the Texas economy when we need it most. We can finally stop the one way train filled with the $2 billion Texas sends to other states every year in exchange for coal that provides no real benefit to our economy and pollutes our air. Natural gas will help create jobs through exploration, construction and maintenance of new facilities. It is homegrown and could help solidify Texas’ continued energy dominance as we reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and focus on Texas’ domestic energy resources, including renewable energy.
Texas could maximize the economic benefits of natural gas if the Legislature would adopt proposals to reduce the unnecessary waste of natural gas. An October 2010 report by the US Government Accountability Office says that 4.2% of gas produced on federal leases is lost through venting or flaring. And at least 40% could be captured with available technologies that pay for themselves with the additional revenue from selling the captured gas. As noted in the Comptroller’s recent “No Regrets” report, changing state policy to require the economic capture of vented and flared gas – meaning that 40% of the 4.2% now vented or flared would be captured — could enable the state to collect an additional 1.7% in income from royalties and severance taxes. We estimate that this would translate to a range of $50 million to as much as $100 million for the state over the biennial budget period. As the 82nd Legislature scours the budget, program by program, those millions of dollars mean more teachers in classrooms or more doctors in our hospitals.
Yesterday I was interviewed on an energy-related television show about natural gas drilling in the U.S. and some viewers thought I was too pro-drilling, others thought I was too anti-drilling. My reaction to that is: PERFECT! That was precisely my intention – to be a balanced voice in the discussion of hydraulic fracturing (HF). HF may be an important process to extract what may be a cleaner-burning fuel source for our country; but if it is developed, adverse impacts for gas drilling must be reduced to assure public safety and to protect the environment.
Currently, the environmental impact of natural gas development is unacceptably high. From polluted water wells in Pennsylvania to an exploding home in Ohio, there are numerous recent examples of environmental disasters from natural gas production.
I said in the interview that HF can be used safely “IF” it is regulated more closely and companies are more transparent about the fluids they use. Regulation may be done state by state, but if states aren’t up to the task, it will need to be regulated at the federal level. So industry needs to step up to the plate and improve its practices. While there are issues with HF, many of the problems with gas are more widespread. A framework is needed that focuses on well construction and operation that goes beyond even HF to broader well construction issues and cementing. Additional issues that must be addressed include getting the cement and pipes right in the wells, and proper management of pressure. Additionally, for hydraulically fractured wells it is important to be sure wells are situated beneath a satisfactory cap rock — one or more layers of rock that’s sufficient to prevent toxic chemicals from migrating into drinking water. Some areas are so important, such as drinking supplies for cities, that they need to be off-limits for fracking.
If natural gas is to fulfill its potential, we need much cleaner drilling practices. Results will be gauged by the improved health and safety of citizens and the earth in the short and long term. Stay tuned for more discussion on this vital topic.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Mike Norman wrote an excellent piece that shines a spotlight on industry tactics evident at the meeting of a committee advising the City of Fort Worth on a study to better characterize the emissions from natural gas production in the city.
I happen to serve on that committee, and here is my take on this week’s events.
The City of Fort Worth wants to conduct a study to obtain much-needed data on the actual emissions from gas drilling and production taking place in the city. Getting accurate and representative measurements of air emissions from an industry with more than 1,200 actively producing wells in the city (and 500 more already permitted) will be a challenging and costly undertaking. Read More
