June 12, 2015

The Honorable Janet McCabe

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Via Electronic Mail 

Re: Oil and gas emissions sources

Dear Ms. McCabe:

The American Petroleum Institute (“API”) has had a long, successful working 

relationship with the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on a number of air 

emissions programs. The oil and gas industry has also been successful in significantly 

reducing emissions from our operations. As we have indicated previously, we do not 

believe that additional EPA regulation of the emissions from our industry is necessary. 

Increased exploration, production and use of natural gas are both essential to meeting 

the goals of the Administration’s Climate Action Plan and an objective of US energy 

policy. Furthermore, there is wide agreement that increased reliance upon natural gas 

as a cleaner fuel can significantly reduce US greenhouse gas emissions. Below, we 

touch on our positions on regulation and voluntary programs, and provide a more 

detailed discussion of an API framework for emissions reduction credits.

Additional Revisions to NSPS OOOO

Should EPA adopt additional controls as part of the ongoing reconsideration of NSPS 

OOOO, EPA should continue to regulate only VOC emissions. If EPA believes that

additional controls are necessary for transmission and storage sources, EPA must 

propose a separate NSPS category for transmission and storage, and determine 

whether this new source category warrants regulatory controls. Additionally, EPA should

minimize the reporting, recordkeeping, quantification, and verification burden on 

industry in any regulatory program. 

Howard J. Feldman

Senior Director

Regulatory and Scientific Affairs

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005-4070

USA

Telephone 202-682-8340

Email feldman@api.org

www.api.org
Page 2 of 3

EPA Voluntary Program

As indicated in my May 5, 2015 letter to you (attached), it is a win for EPA, industry and 

the environment if EPA ensures that any voluntary program is embraced by all 

stakeholders. As described in that letter, our four primary concerns revolve around 1) 

flexibility, 2) clear commitments and assurances with respect to benefits that would 

accrue to participants through their participation, 3) regulatory overlap and 4) 

recordkeeping, quantification, and verification. We believe these concerns need to be 

addressed within the confines of the potential program if such a program is to be a 

success and we are happy to discuss these further with you and/or your staff. As you 

are aware, industry is facing a suite of proposed regulatory changes in the coming 

years. EPA should make it clear that robust participation in the onshore equipment leak 

and high bleed pneumatic controller programs by operators will obviate the need for 

direct regulation of methane for new sources.

Emission Reduction Credits

As EPA moves in the direction of additional regulations of oil and gas operations, 

potentially more stringent ozone standards, and development of new voluntary 

emissions reduction programs, the establishment of a framework for emissions 

reduction credits (“ERCs”) would be a win-win for all parties.

ERCs provide important compliance flexibility to industry in areas where a more 

stringent ozone standard could jeopardize continued industry operations.

As indicated, it is beneficial for all parties if EPA ensures that any voluntary program is 

coordinated with other regulatory action, including any Control Technique Guideline

(“CTG”) to the states. This would preserve industry’s ability to generate ERCs for VOCs 

to the maximum extent permissible under the Clean Air Act and to preserve those

credits. Voluntary reductions of other ozone precursors such as NOX currently generate 

ERCs. EPA may want to consider incentivizing further reductions from these precursors 

in its voluntary framework to make the program appealing to producers who may not 

have VOC-rich gas. Also, EPA should consider the generation and use of credits for 

methane emission reductions as well and crediting early action in recognition of the 

significant reductions industry has already made.

Attached, please find a paper entitled INCENTIVIZING VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION 

IN THE ENHANCED NATURAL GAS STAR PROGRAM, that proposes a framework for 

the continued generation of emission reduction credits for use as offsets to help attain 

the ozone NAAQS. This framework would assure that industry has incentives to 

participate in EPA's voluntary methane emissions reduction program ("Enhanced 

Natural Gas Star" or “ENGS”) by enabling VOC reductions achieved as co-benefits of 
Page 3 of 3

voluntary methane controls to be treated as ERCs. This would thereby preserve

industry's compliance flexibility under the NAAQS being developed for ground level 

ozone. We anticipate that the framework would be incorporated into the Control 

Technique Guidelines ("CTGs") EPA is developing for oil and gas production sources, 

so that the CTGs do not "mandate" reductions that will be made voluntarily under the 

ENGS and thus preclude their use as ERCs. 

 

Since preserving ERC opportunities for companies that wish to use them may 

significantly inform and influence industry's perspective on the ENGS, we strongly urge 

EPA to review and respond to the proposed framework before the draft ENGS is 

released for comment. Affirming EPA's willingness to preserve ERC opportunities will 

help lay the groundwork for a positive dialogue on the draft ENGS and clarify one of the 

potential benefits to industry of participating in the ENGS. 

We encourage the EPA to take the necessary time to address our proposal before it 

releases a draft ENGS. Incorporating the proper incentives into the ENGS from the 

start will greatly assist companies in justifying their participation and the costs 

involved. Obviously, wide industry participation is important to the success of the 

ENGS. We believe that, with the right incentives in place, a significant portion of the 

production industry would be encouraged to join, which would obviate the need for an 

additional regulatory program. 

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to discussing these issues with you

and your staff at your earliest convenience. Please contact me if you have any 

questions.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Feldman

Cc: Joseph Goffman

Paul Gunning

Carey Bylin

Peter Tsirigotis