{"id":18530,"date":"2018-11-16T14:51:36","date_gmt":"2018-11-16T19:51:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=18530"},"modified":"2018-11-16T17:35:49","modified_gmt":"2018-11-16T22:35:49","slug":"one-year-after-corporate-methane-advocacy-commitments-serious-doubts-emerge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2018\/11\/16\/one-year-after-corporate-methane-advocacy-commitments-serious-doubts-emerge\/","title":{"rendered":"One year after corporate methane advocacy commitments, serious doubts emerge"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The credibility of recent industry methane commitments is under the microscope.<\/p>\n

One year ago, many of the world\u2019s top oil and gas companies publicly committed<\/a> to support methane policies and regulations to reduce emissions from the global oil and gas industry. But today, serious doubts are emerging about whether the companies will keep their promise in the face of extreme regulatory rollbacks in the largest oil and gas producing nation in the world\u2014the United States.<\/p>\n

Companies with significant U.S. production\u2014like BP, Chevron, Equinor, ExxonMobil, and Shell\u2014committed to \u201cadvocate sound policy and regulations on methane emissions,\u201d including working \u201cconstructively\u201d with governments and others \u201cin the development and implementation of effective methane abatement policies or regulations.\u201d EDF, which worked with industry and others to develop the principles, welcomed the companies\u2019 commitments. We noted<\/a> that \u201cdone right, voluntary action is a way for leaders to raise the bar for industry\u2019s performance, but fair competition and a healthy environment are not possible unless all companies meet the same basic standards that only sensible government regulation can achieve.\u201d The five companies noted above have since joined others in the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative in committing to a voluntary methane target<\/a>. But government regulations are under threat, creating the imperative for an unequivocal industry response.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In the U.S., a major recent scientific study found emissions are 60 percent higher than prior estimates\u2014enough to double the climate impact of U.S. natural gas. A broadly applicable regulatory floor is the only credible way to bring along all of industry in reducing methane. But EPA rollbacks would deliberately let the bottom fall out, to the detriment of leading companies whose investments in natural gas could be compromised by the broader industry\u2019s underperformance.<\/p>\n

How have companies responded? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Early indications of industry lobbying are cause for concern. According to trade publication E&E News<\/a>, \u201cWhite House officials urged EPA to make changes to an Obama-era methane rule that would maximize cost savings for the oil and gas industry while allowing the release of more planet-warming emissions, government documents show.\u201d Reportedly Chevron and Shell were among those joining the American Petroleum Institute for a May meeting with administration officials that included \u201cmonitoring frequency\u201d as an agenda item.<\/p>\n

Weeks later, the EPA began implementing less frequent inspections, in line with \u201cthe wish list of several oil and gas industry groups,\u201d per E&E. The resulting proposal\u2014now in open comment period\u2014slashes leak detection requirements by 75 percent for some wells. According to EPA, the proposal will allow hundreds of thousands of tons of additional methane pollution by 2025.<\/p>\n

This existential threat to methane regulation flies in the face of the spirit and letter of the methane guiding principles.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

An even larger deregulatory threat looms\u2014the administration is reportedly considering wholly eliminating EPA regulation of methane. This proposal would not only give a free pass to pollute for newer facilities covered by the Obama era rule, it would attempt to cut out a key legal building block for regulation of the vast network of existing\u2014and emitting\u2014oil and gas infrastructure.<\/p>\n

This existential threat to methane regulation flies in the face of the spirit and letter of the methane guiding principles. So how have companies that signed the principles responded thus far?<\/p>\n