Archive

Trump administration rolls back pollution rules for drilling on U.S. lands | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Trump administration rolls back pollution rules for drilling on U.S. lands

The Associated Press
246550246550586cb20f9dfb409fac612a5e05d40826
President Trump speaks Sept. 18, 2018, during a news conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda in the East Room of the White House.
246550246550d3a7c7e96c4b4252b48e584ade35a831
Gas flares at a natural gas processing facility in February 2015 near Williston, N.D.

BILLINGS, Mont. — The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled back an Obama-era rule that forced energy companies to capture methane — a key contributor to climate change that’s released in huge amounts during drilling on U.S. and tribal lands.

A replacement rule from the Interior Department rescinds mandates for companies to reduce gas pollution, which Trump administration officials say already is required by some states.

The change could save companies as much as $2 billion in compliance costs over the next decade. It comes a week after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed weakening a separate methane emissions rule affecting private land and some public lands.

“We’re for clean air and water, but at the same time, we’re for reasonable regulations,” Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt told reporters.

Methane is a component of natural gas that’s frequently wasted through leaks or intentional releases during drilling operations. The gas is considered a more potent contributor to climate change than carbon dioxide, although it occurs in smaller volumes.

Bernhardt and other Interior officials were unable to immediately say how much the new rule would affect methane emissions. But a U.S. Bureau of Land Management analysis provided to The Associated Press said all the reductions projected to occur under the original rule were lost with Tuesday’s change.

The prior regulation would have cut methane emissions by as much as 180,000 tons a year. Emissions of potentially hazardous pollutants known as volatile organic compounds, which can cause health problems if inhaled, would have been reduced by up to 80,000 tons a year.

The change could also result in the loss of $734 million in natural gas that would have been recovered over the next decade under the old rule. Those savings would have offset some of the industry’s compliance costs.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico criticized the rollback as a “giveaway to irresponsible polluters.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said he planned to challenge the change.

“We’ve sued the administration before over the illegal delay and suspension of this rule and will continue doing everything in our power to hold them accountable to our people and planet,” Becerra said

An estimated $330 million a year in methane is wasted on federal lands, enough to power about 5 million homes.

Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, said the old rule improperly put the BLM in the role of regulating air quality, which she said should instead be done by the EPA or state agencies.

The Obama rule has been tied up in the courts since its adoption. It was put on hold in April by a federal judge in Wyoming.

Energy companies said it was overly intrusive and that companies already have an economic incentive to capture methane so they can sell it. However, that’s not always practical in fast-growing oil and gas fields, where large volumes of gas are burned off using flares.

Flaring has been a common practice in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, New Mexico and other states.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.