A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM: 

EPA’S METHANE REGULATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

September 15, 2016 

Serial No. 114–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 
A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM: EPA’S METHANE REGULATIONS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–562PDF 2017

A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM: 

EPA’S METHANE REGULATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

September 15, 2016 

Serial No. 114–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

September 15, 2016 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Erik Milito, Director, Upstream and Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Dr. Bernard Weinstein, Professor, Associate Director, Maguire Energy Institute, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic Planning, Environmental 

Defense Fund 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Mr. Anthony J. Ventello, Executive Director, Progress Authority 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 70 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Erik Milito, Director, Upstream and Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute .................................................................................................. 86 

Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for Strategic Planning, Environmental 

Defense Fund ........................................................................................................ 91 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 100 

Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 101 
Page

IV 

Documents submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 106 

Documents submitted by Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 118 

Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 120 
(1) 

A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM: 

EPA’S METHANE REGULATIONS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. All right. We’re going to go ahead and 

get started. We have votes happening between 10:00 and 10:30, so 

we’re going to start just as soon as we can here if our witnesses 

can take their positions. 

When we break for votes, we’ll come back here and continue the 

hearing immediately following votes. I think we’ll only have one 

vote, so it shouldn’t take too long and get as much information as 

we can before we all fly home for the weekend. 

The Subcommittee on the Environment will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘A Solution in Search of a 

Problem: EPA’s Methane Regulations.’’ I recognize myself for five 

minutes for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing will examine the impact of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s recent regulatory activity on methane gas. We 

will also discuss implementation, economic impacts, and other associated issues regarding the methane rules at the national and the 

state level. 

I am concerned about the EPA’s expansive interpretation of its 

regulatory scope and its continued use of questionable scientific 

bases for rulemaking. My concern extends to the EPA’s methane 

rule. 

This past May, EPA Administrator McCarthy stated that she will 

expedite issuing regulations for reducing methane emissions from 

existing sources. Rather than expedite methane regulation, EPA 

should take a breath and realize that the best available science 

does not support new rulemaking. But once again, EPA is back at 

it with cherry-picking and fudging data to fit a politically driven 

agenda aided by a cabal of establishment environmentalists. 

A study published earlier this year by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists found that the expansion of oil 

and gas production is not to blame for a global increase in methane 

emissions. That was NOAA. That was their study. And according 

to the study’s author, ‘‘The U.S. energy industry contributes little 

to the overall burden of global fossil fuel emissions.’’ According to 

this NOAA study, wetlands, which naturally generate methane, 

and agriculture from sources outside the United States are the 

main contributors to emissions. 

Here at home, the oil and gas industry has drastically cut methane emissions through responsible voluntary efforts. Technological 

advances under development and implemented by industry will 

only lead to further reductions, without the need for costly and burdensome EPA regulations. 

Leading energy researchers, including the National Economic Research Associates, dispute and challenge EPA’s claims that reducing methane leaks by 45 percent by 2025 will be equivalent to 

shutting down one third of the world’s coal-fired power plants. EPA 

is simply exaggerating their claims. A study by NERA concludes 

that the supposed benefits from EPA’s methane rules are highly 

uncertain and very likely overstated. 

The actual reduction in global temperatures is also minimal. Energy In Depth found that the rules would reduce global temperatures by a mere 4/1000 of a degree Celsius over the next 84 years, 
5 

4/1000 of a degree Celsius. We can’t even measure that. Even if we 

shut down and stopped all American oil and gas production, it will 

have no impact on global temperatures. 

And the cherry-picking of the science does not stop there. Issues 

of data integrity have continually dogged EPA during and after the 

regulatory process behind the methane rules. Before the final 

methane rule for new sources was released, the EPA conveniently 

increased its estimates of methane emissions from petroleum and 

natural gas systems without specifically identifying these emissions. It conveniently revised the greenhouse gas inventory for 

methane, adding 85 million metric tons to the U.S. methane emissions. Of course, EPA released this report ahead of their final rule. 

And it gets worse. In order for EPA to justify their new-found activism, EPA assumed that the emissions from marginal wellheads, 

their profiles were similar to those of higher-producing wells and 

claimed the use of ‘‘new methodology.’’ However, EPA had previously admitted that marginal wells have ‘‘inherently low’’ emissions. 

What is clear and supported by the facts is that the recent economic boom is real. Communities have benefited tremendously 

from the resurgence of natural gas extraction when extracted safely 

and efficiently and responsibly. While states like New York have 

seen good-paying jobs and the associated economic benefits go to 

the wayside because of their moratorium on hydraulic fracturing 

for natural gas extraction, States like my State of Oklahoma have 

experienced the opposite. 

Ranking fifth in energy production, Oklahoma practices an all-ofthe-above strategy when it comes to energy. Last year, Oklahoma 

produced an all-time high, 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 

That number indicates a 50 percent increase in production over ten 

years. The increased production of natural gas has coincided with 

a decrease in methane emissions. In the last ten years, the state 

of Oklahoma has increased its production of natural gas by 50 percent, and it has coincided with a decrease in methane emissions. 

Oklahoma is leading the way in demonstrating that responsible 

exploration and production with industry-led voluntary emission 

reduction practices realizes decreased emissions without burdensome mandates from the EPA. I would also like to applaud my Attorney General, Scott Pruitt, for joining the lawsuit challenging the 

methane emissions regulations. 

As we will hear today, the shale revolution has changed the U.S. 

economy and has been responsible for creating good-paying jobs. 

Instead of focusing on environmental protection, however, the EPA 

is now pursuing a war on natural gas. 

I want to thank each of our witnesses for coming. I look forward 

to hearing your testimonies. And I will yield back the balance of 

my time, of which there is none remaining. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I will now recognize the Ranking Member from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for being here today. 

Methane leaks and releases are a real problem for the health and 

safety of Americans across the country. Unlike the billowing smoke 

that rises from some coal-fired power plants, methane releases and 

leaks are nearly indistinguishable to a passerby. Oftentimes, environmental repercussions stemming from atmospheric pollution are 

easy to recognize. Higher ozone levels reduce visibility in the form 

of smog, which is easy to see. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are ultimately absorbed by the ocean, resulting in a more acidic ocean that has a visible impact on shellfish in 

coastal economies. 

Methane emissions have similar environmental repercussions, 

but because methane is colorless and odorless, it is easy to forget 

that it is a highly potent greenhouse gas. Once methane is released 

into the atmosphere, it is 80 percent more potent than carbon dioxide for the following 20 years in terms of its effect on the climate. 

I’d like to put up a slide that will better provide an understanding of what a methane leak looks like. 

[Slide.] 

Ms. BONAMICI. Last fall, a natural gas storage tank at Aliso Canyon outside of Los Angeles began leaking methane at an alarming 

rate. The leak was discovered by the gas company on October 23, 

and it took 4 months for that leak to be completely fixed. In that 

time, those plumes continued to rise and thousands of gallons of 

methane poured into the atmosphere; 8,000 residents were displaced from their homes for months; residents suffered headaches, 

nosebleeds, and nausea. 

And just to clarify, here on the right there is infrared camera revealing the wafting cloud of methane over the Aliso Canyon. 

Incidents like this highlight the importance of EPA’s methane 

regulations, specifically the leak detection component. Although the 

new rule only addresses methane emissions at new, reconstructed, 

and modified oil and gas sources, it represents an important first 

step, a step that needs to be made so that the problems of today 

are not the problems of tomorrow. 

We don’t want another Aliso Canyon. We need to work together 

so that we do not have methane emissions in our country. I look 

forward to discussing this important issue today. I want to allow 

plenty of time for the witnesses, so I yield back the balance of my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
9 
10 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentlelady yields back the balance 

of her time. I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Smith, for five minutes. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say to our panelists here today, a vote has been 

called and so we’ll be interrupted, regrettably. And furthermore, 

it’s oftentimes difficult to get members to come back after the last 

vote of the day. They’re running to the airport and so forth. So if 

our attendance is not as great as we would like, that doesn’t diminish the value of your testimony today. 

Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection Agency has become 

an agency that promotes an extreme political agenda rather than 

reasonable policies based on sound science. The EPA knows its regulatory agenda would have little to no significant impact on the environment. But that hasn’t stopped the EPA from imposing some 

of the most expensive and expansive regulations in its history. 

These rules will cost billions of dollars, place a heavy burden on 

American families, and diminish the ability of American businesses 

to compete around the world. EPA’s political agenda is to rearrange 

the American economy and institute ‘‘command and control’’ by the 

Obama Administration. 

This committee’s investigations have revealed that the EPA intentionally chooses to ignore good science. EPA cherry-picks the 

science that fits its agenda and ignores the science that does not 

support its position. When the science falls short, EPA resorts to 

propaganda campaign techniques designed to mislead the public. 

Today’s hearing will examine yet another EPA regulation that 

has relied on suspect science, questionable legal interpretations, 

and flawed analysis to justify its existence. 

Like all regulations promulgated by the EPA, the methane regulation is no different. It stifles economic growth, destroys American 

jobs, and increases energy prices. That means costs will rise, from 

electricity to gasoline to food, disproportionately hurting low-income Americans. 

According to Energy In Depth, by the end of this century the 

EPA’s supposed benefits from the final methane rule for new 

sources will only result in a reduction—now, the Chairman just 

mentioned this a moment ago—reduction of 4/1000 of one degree 

Celsius in temperature rise. That is incredible. 

Recent studies involving National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration scientists conclude that the rise in methane 

emissions are not due to the oil and gas sector, which are the target of the EPA’s regulations. These scientists conclude that the 

likely rise in methane emissions are from natural sources like tropical wetlands. 

Emissions from the oil and gas sector continue to decrease in 

large part because of the voluntary emissions reductions programs 

and advances in technologies. This indicates the futility of new and 

burdensome EPA regulations. During the last year, federal courts 

have halted several of EPA’s major regulations. Many of these regulations trample on the constitutional rights of individuals and rely 

on suspect legal interpretations of the law. 

EPA’s methane rule relies on faulty scientific evidence and data, 

and the final rule constitutes an abuse of authority. For this rea-
11 

son, my home state of Texas, along with North Dakota, are planning to pursue legal action. Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on 

frivolous rules that do little to protect the environment, the EPA 

should spend its resources on developing sound science that will 

lead to technological breakthrough. 

The methane rule is more of the same from the EPA: a costly 

and burdensome regulation that is all pain and no gain. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What we’re going to do now is recess. We have one vote. I’ll be 

right back to introduce the witnesses and hear your testimony. So 

until we get back from voting, we’ll be in recess. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Subcommittee on Environment will 

come back to order. 

Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. 

Erik Milito, Director of Upstream and Industry Operations at the 

American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Milito received his bachelor’s 

degree in business administration from Notre Dame and his law 

degree from Marquette University. 

Our next witness today is Dr. Bernard Weinstein—Weinstein— 

Weinstein? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Weinstein. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Stein, got it. I’m Bridenstine so everybody calls me Bridenstine so—Professor and Associate Director at 

the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University’s 

Cox School of Business. Dr. Weinstein received his bachelor’s degree in public administration from Dartmouth University and his 

master’s degree and Ph.D. in economics from Columbia. 

Our third witness today is Mr. Elgie Holstein—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Holstein. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Holstein, got it—Senior Director for 

Strategic Planning at the Environmental Defense Fund. Mr. Holstein received his bachelor’s degree from Syracuse University. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Anthony Ventello, Executive Director of Progress Authority. Mr. Ventello received his bachelor’s 

degree in geographic and regional planning from Mansfield University, his master’s degree in public administration from Marywood 

University, and his American Economic Development Council certification from Penn State. 

I now recognize Mr. Milito for five minutes for your opening testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ERIK MILITO, DIRECTOR, 

UPSTREAM AND INDUSTRY OPERATIONS, 

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

Mr. MILITO. Thank you, Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member 

Bonamici, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Erik Milito, and I’m the Director of Upstream and 

Industry Operations for the American Petroleum Institute. We 

have witnessed a dramatic transformation of the energy landscape 

over the past ten years both here in the United States and globally. 

Looking back ten years ago, we spoke in terms of energy scarcity, 

and the expectation was that we as a country would be importing 

billions of dollars of natural gas from places like the Middle East, 

Russia, and West Africa. The outlook was the same on the petroleum side. We were expecting U.S. oil production to flatten or decline to about 5 million barrels per day. 

Fortunately, we have experienced an energy resurgence that has 

brought with it tremendous benefits for everyday Americans. We as 

a nation rely on oil and natural gas in everything that we do from 
15 

getting to work, getting our kids to school, to heating and cooling 

our homes, and to using the stovetop to put dinner on the table. 

Because of innovation and the advancement of engineering technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the 

United States is now the world’s largest natural gas producer. And 

on the petroleum side, we’ve increased our production from 5 million barrels per day in 2009 to a peak of 9.4 million barrels a day, 

and this is all because of advanced technology, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and being able to tap into those resources in our shale formations. 

Clearly, we now speak in terms of energy abundance. Consumers 

are the first ones to benefit from our energy resurgence. A recent 

study by IHS concludes that the average household had an additional $1,300 in 2015 because of U.S. shale gas production. AAA estimates that the average American saved $550 at the pump in 

2015, and this also relates to U.S. crude oil production. 

We have also seen major benefits from a global geopolitical and 

energy security standpoint. The United States now plays a major 

role in global energy markets, and this has helped our allies tremendously because there are now greater, more diverse energy 

supplies on the global market. 

We have proven as a nation and as an industry that we are able 

to achieve these economic and national security benefits while not 

only protecting the environment but by providing tangible environmental benefits. From a climate standpoint, the United States has 

seen its greenhouse gas emissions dropped to 20-year lows. This is 

directly attributable to the increased use of clean-burning, abundant, affordable natural gas in the power generation sector. Not 

only has natural gas helped us achieve important reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions, but it also produces little to no particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, contributing to 

cleaner air for all Americans. 

Interestingly enough, in spite of this dramatic increase in U.S. 

production of natural gas, emissions of methane from our industry 

have decreased over the past 20 years. Now, the story here is the 

same. We’ve accomplish this by advancing the technologies to ensure that we are capturing methane, which is the primary component of natural gas. We have shown that the solution to addressing 

methane emissions is through the development and application of 

technologies through innovation, not through a command-and-control regulatory approach that can effectively stifle innovation and 

add unnecessary costs. 

I’d like to point out that methane emissions were declining before 

EPA promulgated any regulations, demonstrating that these regulations are simply not necessary. Our policies should effectively 

promote U.S. energy production and the benefits for everyday 

Americans, not jeopardize the success that we have achieved and 

that we should continue to achieve with smart policy choices. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Milito follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your testimony. 

Dr. Weinstein, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BERNARD WEINSTEIN, 

PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

MAGUIRE ENERGY INSTITUTE, 

COX SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, 

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak today. I’m Bernard Weinstein. 

I’m Associate Director of the Maguire Energy Institute, as the 

Chairman mentioned, and we do a bunch of things at the Institute. 

We do student education, professional development, and we also do 

research on energy issues and policies. And we’ve worked for a 

number of organizations, done studies for—most recently for the 

Small Gasoline Retailers Coalition, we’ve worked with the Nuclear 

Energy Institute, Consumer Energy Alliance. We’ve done some 

work for the American Wind Energy Association, so we’re across 

the board when it comes to energy. 

But we’re here to talk about methane, especially errant methane, 

and we all know this is a potent greenhouse gas and we don’t want 

a lot of it going into the air. Recently, as you know, EPA did finalize a rule requiring drilling companies to install new monitoring 

equipment on production and transmission of oil and natural gas. 

EPA itself estimates the compliance costs will reach about $530 

million annually by 2025. And they’re also developing new regs for 

existing wells and processing equipment. 

And the question is, and I guess the question of this hearing is 

do we really need more federal intervention, more regulatory oversight? How big a problem are we dealing with? And if you could 

put up the first slide. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Mr. Milito mentioned this, but you can see that 

U.S. methane emissions today are lower than they were in 1990. 

And when you consider that the economy is 75 percent larger and 

that oil and gas production has nearly doubled, that is a pretty 

amazing accomplishment. 

And what’s more, again, as Mr. Milito mentioned, only about 23 

percent of errant methane is attributable to the oil and gas industry, and that’s been declining. Emissions from fracked wells are 

down 79 percent, down 94 percent from pipelines. There are other 

sources of methane, as we all know, that probably contribute a lot 

more: wetlands, agriculture, landfills, et cetera. 

We heard the Chairman talking about different studies. I refer 

to those studies in my final testimony so I won’t repeat the findings. But even if we did shut in all of our oil and gas wells, that 

would have little or no impact on the environment as long as other 

countries continue doing what they’re doing. I mean, you know, 

China builds a new coal plant every week. Turkey just announced 

they’re building 30 new coal plants. They are 50 or 60 on the drawing board in India. 
24 

And so I think we need a dose of realism when we talk about, 

you know, what we can do in the United States. And I would argue 

that we’ve done a lot. If you put the next slide up—— 

[Slide.] 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. —carbon emissions—again, we’ve already heard 

this—have dropped dramatically over the past decade. You can see 

that on the right. They dropped by about, you know, 1 trillion tons 

per year, which again is pretty incredible. 

And why has this happened? It’s because we’re using more natural gas and because we’re substituting natural gas in power generation for coal, we’re using more natural gas in transportation, 

we’re using more natural gas in industrial boilers, and that is helping to clean up the environment. Now, I would argue that greater 

use of natural gas, not EPA regulations, deserves most of the credit 

for our reductions in greenhouse gases, and to some degree methane. 

So I’m an economist. Economists, I think, would all agree that 

regulation is not cost-free. And if you’re going to impose new regulations, there are going to be economic consequences. As you know, 

the oil and gas industry has been under some stress of late. I’m not 

sure it would make a lot of political sense to apply new regulations, 

new costs on the industry today, especially because the industry on 

its own has taken steps to capture errant methane. 

I would argue that voluntary and market-based solutions to reducing methane make a lot more sense and can probably achieve 

the Administration’s goals better than new EPA regulations. If we 

monitor everything, we’re simply wasting resources. 

In my prepared testimony, I discuss a voluntary program called 

ONE Future in which a number of gas producers are working with 

EDF to reduce methane leaks to less than one percent of production. Maybe Mr. Holstein is going to talk about that program. I 

don’t believe they’re doing that out of environmental altruism. I 

think they’re doing it because it makes economic sense because 

methane has value, so why wouldn’t you want to capture it? It’s 

used for power, it’s used for heating, it’s used for transportation, 

it’s used for petrochemicals. If there are market-based or voluntary 

solutions that can achieve the goals of regulation at lower cost, 

those are the ones that should be pursued first. 

So thanks for your attention. I’m happy to answer any questions 

at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Weinstein follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. Weinstein. 

Mr. Holstein, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ELGIE HOLSTEIN, 

SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman 

Smith, nice to see you again. And, Ranking Member Bonamici, 

Members of the Subcommittee, I’m very grateful for this opportunity to discuss the role of methane with you today as a potent 

greenhouse gas pollutant and the need for EPA’s rules to guide the 

industry in minimizing those emissions. 

Our scientific understanding of the extent of methane pollution 

and its effects has been growing steadily, and mostly in the last 

several years have we been getting a better scientific handle on the 

extent of the pollution and its impacts. But there is no question at 

this point that methane is a powerful and harmful climate pollutant. 

As Ms. Bonamici mentioned, over the first 20 years following its 

release methane is some 84 times more potent than CO2 in terms 

of the climate damage that it does. So while CO2 is of concern and 

does represent a continuing long-term threat, methane drives nearterm climate effects. The result is that 25 percent of the global 

warming we are experiencing right now is due to methane emissions, and that’s why we need action to address both sides of that 

equation. 

Across our economy, the oil and gas sector represents 33 percent 

of U.S. methane emissions, and it’s the largest of all industrial U.S. 

sources. EPA’s latest inventory estimates that in 2014 oil and gas 

industry operations released 9.8 million metric tons of methane 

into the atmosphere, and that was a 34 percent increase over their 

previous estimates. That amount of methane packs the same climate punch over the first 20 years after it’s released as the CO2

emissions for more than 220 coal-fired power plants. And 220 

plants is more than half of the coal plants we have in this country. 

But the good news is that doing something about methane pollution, including complying with methane—EPA’s methane rules, can 

be accomplished at low cost using existing technology. ICF Incorporated did a landmark study in 2014 in which they found that a 

relative handful of specific remedial actions could yield a 40 percent reduction in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector at 

an average cost of about 1 cent per 1,000 cubic feet of gas produced. 

As I mentioned, EPA’s recent inventory reflected an increase of 

34 percent over previous estimates, but we would suggest that that 

number is still understated because scientific evidence suggests 

that even that dramatic revision does not reflect the additional 

methane pollution represented by high random emissions coming 

from a small percentage of sites. 

This kind of distribution in which large volumes are emitted 

from a relatively small percentage of sites is characteristic of methane leakage in the oil and gas sector. For that reason, leak detection and repair programs such as those required by EPA’s rules 
31 

and under some state programs, are an essential part of addressing 

the methane emissions problems. 

EPA’s recently finalized new source performance standards for 

methane pollution build on successful regulatory frameworks that 

have been adopted over the last several years in some leading energy-producing States such as Colorado and Wyoming. So while we 

support EPA’s action to control oil and gas sources of methane 

emissions from new and modified sources, we also strongly encourage the agency to keep making progress toward addressing methane emissions from existing sources. Again, according to ICF, nearly 90 percent of the oil and gas methane emissions in 2018 will 

have come from sources that were already in existence by 2012. 

Again, federal actions build on state initiatives. 

Colorado’s rules require leak detection and repair programs for 

all wells, both new and existing, conventional and unconventional. 

Altogether, the new rules will remove 100,000 tons of methane and 

90,000 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds. That’s 

equal to the emissions of all the cars and trucks in the State of Colorado today, year after year after year. 

Now, I know that this subcommittee is deeply concerned about 

the potential cost to the industry of complying with state and federal methane rules, but the good news on this issue is not only that 

cutting methane emissions is generally very inexpensive but the 

cost of methane leak detection surveys is relatively low as well. 

Today, methane inspections can cost as little as $250, and of course 

one of the benefits of the EPA regulation is that it’s already driving 

innovation in the private sector. 

Today, there are 75 companies in 500 different locations in 46 

States providing methane reduction services and support. Regulating methane emissions from both new and existing sources is an 

important and cost-effective step in stopping the worst effects of climate change. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy 

to take any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holstein follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Holstein. 

Mr. Ventello, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTHONY J. VENTELLO, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROGRESS AUTHORITY 

Mr. VENTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members. 

My name is Anthony Ventello. I’m the Executive Director of the 

Progress Authority. We’re an industrial development and economic 

development agency in the northern tier of Pennsylvania. 

I live, work, and have raised a family in the heart of the 

Marcellus Shale formation. We rank first, second, and first in 

statewide shale gas, both in both Bradford and Susquehanna Counties, over 5,700 wells, 2,200 drilled, 6.5 billion cubic feet per day 

of production, representing about 245,000 jobs and $33 billion of investment. 

The answer lies in vertical integration, utilizing the gas. Distribution is critical. Please could I have two slides? 

[Slide.] 

Mr. VENTELLO. Distribution is critical. 

Next slide. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. VENTELLO. One of the issues is at a simple very low level effect is having some of the most prolific wells in the world or 30 

MMcf, there was no local distribution. Nobody could have access to 

the gas. We were—we’ve been able to pipe both schools—actually, 

in a situation where a school actually has wells on it, they were 

able to do a postsecondary school from the standpoint of bringing 

clean natural gas to that location. 

Two hospitals had been built in that region, both having natural 

gas services. In fact, some of the drilling companies have participated in the development of that. And you can see the immense 

amount of investment and jobs that have been created, 51 million 

and 35 million and several hundred jobs as a result of it. 

Infrastructure, next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. VENTELLO. Infrastructure has been critical. We’re now looking at—in both virtual and new pipelines where new pipelines have 

been curtailed, there’s been several new virtual pipelines being developed along interstate corridors both with LNG—liquefied natural gas—and CNG—compressed natural gas—but it’s—we have to 

get the gas to locations to be utilized and marketed. 

Under the energy generation, next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. VENTELLO. I just toured two brand new facilities in our region. One is an 829 megawatt combined cycle facility, Panda power 

station, about 900 million of new investment, eliminating oil and 

coal facilities, as well as to your—the smaller facility, 20 

megawatts, there’s seven proposed in our area. I’ve just toured the 

second completed one, but they also represent about 20 million in 

jobs created along with those. 

One of the interesting elements is that combined heat and power 

has been a massive undertaking, and a lot of our larger facilities 

both in education, industrial development, or manufacturing, and 
40 

as well as hospitals have been getting involved in combined heat 

and power projects under construction. 

In the instance of hospitals, you’re seeing one mainly only because of medical record demand now with the, you know, increased 

automation. Cornell University, GTP, and Procter & Gamble, two 

of which I want to identify, but again, substantial investment, substantial support of job creation. 

And one I want to identify for you is a 30 megawatt combined 

cycle station that’s at Cornell University. They’re very proud of 

this. I toured this facility. Keep in mind it has substantial support 

of over 12,000 employees and 21,000 students, and it’s an anti-natural gas institution. They’re very proud of that facility. 

Infrastructure along the lines of CNG, we have both public fueling stations, compressed natural gas stations, private as well as 

public transportation is now being funded with—or fuel, excuse me, 

with compressed natural gas. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. VENTELLO. Industrial utilization has led to a lot of utilization 

and innovation with natural gas. Over 5,500 local jobs are being 

supported with natural gas. 

We have strong manufacturing with natural gas in an effort to 

re-shore manufacturing into the United States is critical upon having cheap, clean, cost-effective natural gas available. 

A worldwide example, I claim this is the worldwide example of 

natural gas utilization, and there’s not a better example of it. Procter & Gamble has about 1,500 acres. They have the luxury of unconventional drilling on their site. They have a net zero cost for 

both energy generation, thermal demand, and of course they call it 

tri-generation. Now, they’re a paper producer. They use hot air, 

which is usually a waste produce from combined heat and power 

but supporting over 3,000 employees at that location. 

Gas to liquids, this is an innovative project. Most people don’t realize this has gone on—global tungsten, GTP in Towanda, Pennsylvania, has—one of the largest users of hydrogen in the United 

States. They’ve now—they—most of their hydrogen came—next to 

NASA, most of their hydrogen came from both the Gulf States and 

Canada, and now they produce and crack their own hydrogen at 

that particular location, about a $15 million investment. 

We also have gas-to-liquids projects being proposed with regards 

to clean diesel fuel, unleaded gas, wax, lube oils, and they’re moving along because of the opportunity with gas. 

This project I think I need to identify to you. This is a company 

that’s using produced water flow back, and they’re actually recycling it and crystallizing it and utilizing those crystals now, breaking them further down into chemicals to be used in industry 

throughout the region. 

I want to talk in terms of money that’s being invested back into 

the local counties, Act 13, about 70 million between two counties 

for public safety. I want to highlight environmental conservation, 

site development, and housing. All of those are being invested in 

in our area. 

Here’s an example of two housing projects, both elderly—that 

was a burned-out furniture store at—in the upper area that’s now 
41 

about 40 units of residential elderly housing and of course moderate-income housing at the lower level, both naturally gas-served. 

Locations are being developed substantially by the fact that we 

have compression stations, locations with pipelines. There are target locations for vertical integration throughout our region, and 

we’ve identified those and are working with companies to try to locate there. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. VENTELLO. This is just a slide to show you all the elements 

that get involved in natural gas from the standpoint—all the features from the standpoint of well pads, water withdrawal locations, 

compression, and pipelines. 

One thing I think is extremely critical is the fact that agricultural production is on the rise in our area. As a result, in 2008 it 

was on the decline. The Marcellus Shale, since then, it’s been on 

an incline. And if I can just summarize it by saying natural gas 

has been a complementary land use and has kept land in large parcels, which is conducive to agriculture and maintains a rural way 

of life. I can—all aspects of—soybean, beef, swine, egg production, 

and niche farming has been on the rise because farmers now have 

some income to reinvest in the farm. 

And I just want to summarize by saying that increased regulation will reverse the established initiatives that we have in environmental benefits, economic investment in jobs, and energy independence with overregulation. 

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ventello follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Ventello. 

I’d like to thank all of the witnesses for their testimonies. Your 

written testimonies will be made part of the record. So even though 

this might be a short hearing, we have all of your information here 

with the committee. 

Members are reminded that committee rules limit questioning to 

five minutes. I’ll recognize myself for the first five minutes. 

Dr. Weinstein, you’re an economist. Do the benefits of the methane rule outweigh the costs, and can you explain? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. I don’t believe so. I think there are costs that are 

currently unaccounted for and typical, you know, EPA cost-benefit 

analysis. But don’t misunderstand me. I think, you know, methane 

releases are a serious environmental issue. I just believe there are 

better ways to deal with these issues. 

I actually attended a seminar two days ago. It was actually a 

webinar, and it was sponsored by Stanford University and Resources for the Future. They made some very good points. And actually, Mr. Holstein mentioned one of them. The huge amount of 

methane release comes from what are called super-emitters. Well, 

I don’t believe a kind of blanket regulation that would apply to, you 

know, all producers of natural gas, oil, transmission companies, 

what have you makes any sense if we can—you know, if there are, 

you know, targeted areas that can be addressed in terms of controlling emissions. 

You know, there are a number of other specific areas that I think 

can be dealt with a lot more simply than passing a new slew of federal regulations. Another source of omissions is orphan wells. The 

States have traditionally done—dealt with orphan wells and any 

emissions associated with that. 

We also have some old cities in the Northeast where there are 

pipelines that are leaking methane. I don’t see where, you know, 

EPA has a role to play there. It makes a lot of sense for the cities 

and the States to initiate policies and take steps, along with the 

distribution companies, to replace those old lead pipelines. And 

that is going on. 

So on balance I think what’s being proposed in terms of new regulations from EPA on methane emissions, that the costs overall are 

going to far exceed any benefits. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. As far as when you think about the cost 

and the benefit regarding our impact as one country in the entire 

world, does that change the calculus? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. I would put it this way. If the rest of the world 

were doing what we’re doing in terms of both, you know, regulatory 

and private policies towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 

that would do a lot more to address climate change concerns than 

just what we do in the United States. As I showed in those two 

slides, you know, with little—how should I say—little impact from 

regulations per se, we have seen a tremendous drop in CO2 emissions. We’ve seen a drop in methane emissions as well. 

And I go back to the fact that we’re not a stagnant economy. 

We’re a growing economy. We’re almost as—twice as large as we 

were 20 years ago. We’ve had 100 percent increase in oil and gas 

production, and yet emissions are falling. So the industry must be 

doing something right. 
71 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Milito, I wanted to get you on the 

record. Could you please describe the technological advances that 

the industry has made to reduce methane emissions? 

Mr. MILITO. Yes, there are several. I think the first one you look 

at is what we call reduced emission completions, also called green 

completions. And this is an industry of solutions, and we understand that methane is a main component of natural gas so we want 

to capture it. We want to sell it, and we want to put it into the 

market. And one of the technologies that have been—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Can you make sure your—is your mike 

on? 

Mr. MILITO. Sorry. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Mr. MILITO. Appreciate that. I was talking about how the industry is an industry of solutions, and when we—when we’re looking 

at an issue like methane, we’re looking at the primary component 

of natural gas. It’s the product that this industry sells, every incentive to make sure we’re capturing it. And one of the areas that we 

realized we need to be proactive was when we’re done with hydraulic fracturing and putting the well into production, the period called 

completion so we put together equipment and machinery to make 

sure that that process doesn’t result in venting of gas, venting of 

methane, and that we’re actually capturing it and using it for onsite fuel or for putting it into the market. 

Other examples are reduction in the use of pneumatic valves and 

controllers that utilize natural gas and sometimes vented off, taking those away from the equation or moving to lower-venting ones, 

eliminating emissions from storage tanks, and the list goes on. But 

the idea here is that we are an industry that has been very active 

in deploying these technologies well before EPA put any regulations forward. And I would say that the EPA regulations are in 

many respects a lagging indicator of the industry because they’re 

based upon technologies the industry has proactively developed. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Now, when you think about the study I 

mentioned earlier from Energy In Depth, we’re talking about a 

change in global temperatures of .004 degrees Celsius over the next 

84 years. Does that assume that the technological advances that 

are currently being made are not implemented or are implemented? 

Mr. MILITO. Well, I think there’s different ways to look at it. One 

way to look at it is understanding U.S. overall GHG emissions, of 

which methane constitutes ten percent, of which U.S. oil and gas 

methane emissions are about four percent. So think about that. 

We’re talking about four percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, 

of which these rules are intended to maybe get 40 percent. 

So you’re—we’re not talking about fractions of U.S. greenhouse 

gas emissions that these rules are intended to go after, yet at the 

same time, it’s unclear if they’re going to provide any appreciable 

benefit beyond what the industry is already doing. So we’re adding 

tremendous costs that could be ultimately applied to a million 

wells, ultimately impacting the consumer in a very negative way 

because when our supply goes down, what happens to prices? The 

pressure is upward on prices. So we’ve got a very—we’ve got to 

question the types of actions when we’re talking about fractions in 

the overall scheme of things. 
72 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Copy that. 

I’d like to recognize Ms. Bonamici for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin my question, I just want to comment on the opening statement of the Chairman. There was a citation to a NOAA 

study for the premise that the U.S. energy industry contributes little to the overall burden of global fossil fuel emissions. I’m a little 

concerned about the attribution of that comment because the 

NOAA study did not separate out United States from global emissions. So we’re just for the record going to be following up to—with 

NOAA and correcting—putting any correcting information in the 

record. 

Mr. Holstein, we talked a little bit about Aliso Canyon and how 

alarming that was and the thousands of people who had to evacuate and many became ill, and I know no one wants to see that 

kind of incident repeated. So would you please talk a little bit 

about what can be done to prevent similar incidents in a newly 

constructed facility? And importantly, will you please address the 

notion that’s come up both in some of the statements from the dais 

but also in some of the testimony that voluntary efforts will be sufficient? Can you address that issue? Will voluntary efforts be sufficient without the EPA’s involvement? Thank you. 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Certainly. Thank you. Aliso Canyon was a terrible 

tragedy, and I know your question was—is about new facilities of 

that kind, but we should note that there are 400—some 400 similar 

facilities all around the United States, and so we do need to be concerned about the existing facilities as well. 

But with respect to both those and especially a new facility, the 

single most important thing to address in the construction of a new 

storage facility would be well integrity. And now, typically, these 

facilities make use of old oil and gas—depleted oil and gas fields 

in order to re-inject natural gas into those fields for long-term and 

sometimes short-term storage also in order to help meet spikes in 

demand that may occur during a heating season, for example, 

and—or for sudden surges in demand for electricity in the summertime. 

So the first step, of course, is well integrity, to make sure that 

you’ve got the well constructed correctly. The second category of actions you want to take is to have a leak detection and repair set 

of protocols so that you see what’s happening so that you can get 

a handle on these problems before they become a 3- or 4-month disaster requiring thousands of people to be evacuated. 

And indeed, just 2 days ago, the company responsible for that 

leak did agree to a comprehensive new set of leak detection and repair protocols in their legal discussions or negotiations with the 

county. The State is still developing their case, but I think the fact 

that there is this focus on using the new leak detection technologies that are becoming available is instructive for the larger 

issues relating to methane. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And what is your response to the suggestion that 

the industry can address this issue without regulation? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. If we look at the scale of the problem, which I— 

which has been detailed by EPA’s recent inventory showing a 34 

percent increase over the previous estimates, but in particular if 
73 

we look at the power of the methane molecule, it’s an enormously 

powerful, nasty climate actor, and as you stated, 84 times more 

powerful than a molecule of carbon dioxide. And that—what that 

really means is we can’t afford to wait for the industry to play 

catch-up with the science. 

And part of the problem that the industry has—Dr. Weinstein is 

correct as far as he goes in saying that these random events are 

significant, but the emphasis I have to place is on the word random. You—a lot of this is counterintuitive. You can’t simply take— 

make an assumption that old facilities are going to leak more than 

new facilities or the other way around, enormously random and 

that’s why you need comprehensive leak detection. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And can you talk a little bit about—you mentioned Colorado. They were successful in developing—— 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. They were. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —regulations and how is that working in Colorado? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Oh, it’s working spectacularly well, and the best 

example I can give you of that is the fact that they’ve removed pollutants from the air there as a direct result of those rules equivalent to all the cars and trucks on the road in the State of Colorado. 

And I would note that those rules, which are really national—you 

know, really leading the country, those rules were put in place with 

the collaboration of the three largest oil and gas developers in that 

State at the time. 

Environmental Defense Fund was there as well to help provide 

some technical input as well. And it was an open process, but it 

was truly led by the industry in saying we do need a comprehensive set of rules, we need them uniform, and we need the rest of 

the industry to get on board. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you very much. And my—I see my 

time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Before going to Chairman Smith, Mr. 

Milito, would you comment on Aliso Canyon and how it relates specifically to the rule? 

Mr. MILITO. Yes, Aliso Canyon is a very serious situation, something we never want to see happen, don’t want to see happen 

again, but it’s completely unrelated to the EPA rules we’re talking 

about today. 

We take this very seriously. And the oil and gas industry, as I 

mentioned, is an industry of solutions. We as API are a standardsetting organization. We create the standards for safe and environmentally responsible operations that are relied upon around the 

world. That’s how we started. 

We have two new documents related to underground storage to 

make sure this type of incident doesn’t happen. They relate to 

issues such as well integrity so we’ve come forward with a solution. 

The other thing I would add is this is not being ignored by the 

federal government. It’s not an EPA issued. PHMSA is looking at 

this and addressing it and working with an interagency task force 

that includes API, our companies, and we’re moving forward in a 

way where the companies are already implementing these standards. So it is wrong to conflate Aliso Canyon with emissions of 

methane from production facilities. They’re totally separate issues. 
74 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. I just want to get that on 

the record. 

Chairman Smith, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me say it’s a credit to our witnesses today and 

to the importance of the subject matter that so many members 

came back after our only vote of the day to be at this hearing. 

I just want to follow up before I get to my first question and say 

I agree with those who have expressed the sentiment today that 

obviously methane and carbon emissions have been going down but 

largely because of technological breakthroughs. The last thing we 

need are more government regulations which are ineffective and 

don’t have any significant impact. It is much better to let technology provide the solution, as it always has for the history of our 

country. The mindset that the government knows best is not, I 

think, a productive mindset. 

Mr. Milito, let me address my first question to you and it is this. 

In what ways do you feel that the EPA has misled us when it 

comes to the benefits of the methane regulations? 

Mr. MILITO. Well, I think this gets back to the underlying science 

and whether or not we have a system, an economy, an industry 

that are already effectively addressing the methane issue. And if 

you look at some of the research of Environmental Defense Fund, 

you know, they’ve come forward and said, you know, if we keep 

supply chain emissions of methane below a 2.7 to 3.2 percent 

range, we get the environmental benefit. Now, the EDF studies 

that look at the equipment on sites, the EPA inventory, this data 

shows that 1.5 percent, maybe 1.8 percent, all the data shows we’re 

well below that. 

So we are in a situation right now where the data shows that 

we get this huge benefit from producing natural gas because it’s 

clean burning not just from the climate change standpoint but from 

traditional pollutants as well, things like NOx, SOx, particulate 

matter. So we are winning. We’re doing what we need to do—— 

Chairman SMITH. Exactly. 

Mr. MILITO. —without the regulations. 

Now, we have EPA regulations put forward. They do a regulatory 

impact analysis. It’s a wash. If you look at EPA’s own numbers, it’s 

a wash, but then when you go back and apply the real data, the 

better data, the more certain data, it shows that in a year like 2025 

and beyond we can be looking at cost more than $1 billion—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. MILITO. —from a ruling. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Milito, this is exactly the information we 

need to get out, and I thank you for making those points. 

Dr. Weinstein, in what ways is the modeling system used by the 

EPA flawed or biased? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. I’m not really qualified to speak about the specifics of the EPA models. I have not studied them. My—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. My knowledge or my understanding is solely 

based on—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. That’s perfectly fine. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Okay. Yes. 
75 

Chairman SMITH. We’ll come back in a minute. 

Mr. Ventello, let me ask you about the impact of the EPA regulations. And I might ask Dr. Weinstein and Mr. Milito as well. What 

is the impact of the regulations likely to be on economic growth 

and job creation? 

Mr. VENTELLO. Well, I—you know, I—from the standpoint of the 

industry itself, additional burden with low cost right now with pricing being down, as well as the fact that the industry has been pretty much self-policing. We see a lot of improvements in what they’ve 

done. And of course, as has been stated, the—you know, the release 

of methane is a loss of dollars, so there’s a lot of effort to try to 

make sure that they do things with—to current standards. 

But in essence, right now, in a low-cost environment it would 

have a substantial impact long-term just because of additional cost 

in nod only improving the wells but also completions and transmitting. 

The key really lies in moving the gas so that you can minimize 

the amount of methane that is emitted from an idle situation. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. But we tend to forget that we are the world’s 

number one natural gas-producing country, and that we’re also getting into the business of exporting natural gas. That has tremendous economic benefits in addition to the environmental benefits of 

natural gas that we’ve discussed. The fact that we are number one, 

that this is an industry that is not only empowering the U.S. economy but employs lots and lots of people and now we’re getting into 

the export business. 

So I think we need to be very careful in assessing new policies 

and regulations that can make it more expensive for us to produce 

and sell natural gas unless there’s overwhelming evidence that the 

benefits of regulation exceed the cost. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Weinstein. 

Mr. Milito, what about you? What about the economic impact 

and what about the impact on jobs? 

Mr. MILITO. It could be huge. The general rule—I’m sorry. I’ve 

got to get better with my button here. It could be huge. The general 

rule of thumb, based upon—and what about a lot of the economists 

will look at is that for each Bcf of production that we have of natural gas in the United States, you get 32,000 jobs. So we’ve gone 

from 52 Bcf per day in 2007. We’re at about 74 now, so, you know, 

just do the math and we’re talking hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

So you have regulations that could increase the cost on the industry dramatically. A more recent ICF study shows it could be 

$3.35 per Mcf, and that’s based upon applying a lot of the same 

technologies EDF says will cost a penny. Natural gas now is $2.90. 

Doubling the cost of developing a resource or a product that you’re 

selling for $2.90, it just could be devastating to consumers overall. 

Chairman SMITH. All right. Thank you, Mr. Milito. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, may I—before we go on, because 

Mr. Milito mentioned the EDF and Mr. Holstein is here, is it appropriate to have Mr. Holstein respond to the mention of his work? 
76 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. We can—let’s go to Ms. Edwards, and 

then maybe she can yield. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Ms. Edwards, you’re recognized 

for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I might yield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses as well. 

Mr. Holstein, in his testimony Dr. Weinstein described the methane regulations as a ‘‘solution in search of a problem,’’ and I wonder if based on your testimony I suppose you would disagree with 

that. You mentioned that the knowledge base for methane is just 

kind of catching up. We have a huge knowledge base for CO2 emissions. Where relatively would you put our knowledge base of methane emissions with respect to carbon—to CO2? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. I would say catching up fast. Five years ago, nobody was paying attention to methane as a major climate pollutant. 

The NOAA study that was referred to earlier in its very first sentence references the fact of—that there are emissions that are of 

concern and throughout that study mentioned methane prominently. 

Mr. Milito did mention EDF studies. I actually appreciate that 

mention because I think it’s been remarkable how we’ve come together on the environmental side with the industry in conducting 

some of these studies, which are peer-reviewed and which are supervised by—and designed by outside independent scientists. 

We can disagree about what the policy implications of those results are, but I do have to correct him on one point, which is we 

believe that the cumulative result of our scientific work show that 

we need to get methane emissions from this sector down at or 

below one percent, not 2.7, at or below one percent if you’re going 

to have an improvement over what you would otherwise get if you 

were, for example, burning coal. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So let me ask you a little bit about that because 

I think there’s some confusion. First of all, the EPA regulations 

that we have discussed, EPA has imposed regulations—has put forward final regulations on new and future methane productions, 

right? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And they have not done any regulating on existing—there are no proposed regulations on existing operations, is 

that correct? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Also correct, yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so we’re really speculating here as to what 

EPA’s going to do just because they’re gathering information. It’s 

kind of their job to gather information, isn’t it? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. It is. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So—and—so I wonder, can you also clarify, natural gas is still a fossil fuel, right? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. It is. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And it’s cleaner-burning than coal and other fossil 

fuels, is that right? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Which is good. But there are still environmental 

impacts and public health impacts for—from methane emissions? 
77 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes, and it’s cleaner-burning relative to coal—to 

answer your question of a moment ago—only if you get the emission—the fugitive emissions down at or below one percent. And 

that is not where we are, and that’s where we need to be. Otherwise, those environmental benefits simply don’t accrue. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so in your examination of some of the industry-led reports of cost-benefit analyses, do they take into consideration—in your experience, do they take into consideration the public health cost? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. They often do not, and I gave the example of Colorado where the measures that are undertaken—and remember 

this was a program put in place with the collaboration and cooperation of industry itself, the biggest producers in the State—puts the 

industry in the position of under—in Colorado of taking huge 

amounts of pollutants out of the air, not just the climate change. 

If you didn’t care about climate change at all, you would still welcome the dramatic reductions in smog-forming ground-level ozone 

and in the volatile organic compounds that include toxic air pollutants. And there, we’re talking about premature deaths, asthma, 

hospitalization. And I refer you to the American Lung Association’s 

letter on this point of December, which we’d be happy to submit for 

the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And so my time is running out here. 

And so I want to give Mr. Milito an opportunity to respond. In your 

testimony, you say there are significant costs—you’re referring to 

the regulations—without commensurate benefits. Does your analysis take into consideration public health costs, as well as the economic costs? 

Mr. MILITO. We are looking at this from a climate standpoint. 

Methane is not a toxic pollutant. This is a climate question that 

we’re talking about, and we’re looking at whether or not we are 

achieving methane emission reductions without the costs imposed 

by the regulations. So we are—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. It is a fossil fuel though, right? It is a fossil fuel? 

Mr. MILITO. It is a fossil fuel. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so—and it does still have some of the same 

public health costs as other fossil fuels, maybe just not to the same 

extent, isn’t that right? 

Mr. MILITO. Well, it’s providing an environmental benefit to the 

public when you use it rather than other natural gas—other fossil 

fuel-powered power plants. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Milito. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentlewoman yields back. 

I just want to make it clear on the record, back in May EPA Administrator McCarthy stated that she will expedite issuing regulations for reducing methane emissions from existing sources, so that 

is not speculation. That comes from the EPA Administrator Gina 

McCarthy. 

I now recognize Mr. Palmer for five minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to point out 

that there’s still serious debate over whether or not the climate is 

warming. I think there’s research out that says we haven’t had a 

significant increase in temperature in 18 years so—that’s prob-
78 

ably—Mr. Chairman, probably going to make me subject to some 

kind of government retribution or a trial or something. I don’t 

know. That is going on with some of these AG trials. 

Mr. Weinstein, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own estimates, methane emissions in the United States have 

decreased by six percent between 1990 and 2014. During that time 

period, has natural gas production in the United States increased 

or decreased? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. It’s increased about 70 percent. 

Mr. PALMER. If we do nothing at all, will the methane emissions 

from oil and natural gas sector continue to decrease? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Yes, I believe so. As we’ve heard from Mr. Milito, 

the industry is embracing the best available technology to capture 

methane, and that is one of the reasons that we see this long-term 

decline. 

Mr. PALMER. And one of the reasons that we have such abundant 

supplies of natural gas now is because technology, is that correct? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. That’s correct. 

Mr. PALMER. And it continues to improve almost on a daily basis, 

is that correct? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Yes. It’s really incredible if you consider that the 

rate count is down 70 percent over the last two years and gas production is only down about seven percent. That indicates that we’re 

getting much more efficient in our ability to produce—— 

Mr. PALMER. Methane capture at the wellhead technology—that 

technology is increasing at a rapid rate. Is that also true? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Yes, it is. And most States do have standards for, 

you know, capturing methane. 

Mr. PALMER. And the methane that’s emitted from wellheads is 

a relatively small amount compared to other methane sources, is 

that correct? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. In the overall scheme of things, yes. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Milito, EPA issued five technical white papers 

covering compressors, emissions from well completions, leaks, liquids unloading, and controllers and pumps. Did the EPA properly 

take into account concerns that were raised by various stakeholders during the supposed peer-review? 

Mr. MILITO. Not all the concerns that we had with the rules, particularly with the targeting of methane as the pollutant in this 

case. We felt that we could have done it without that. 

Mr. PALMER. In your experience and observations, does EPA actually take into account these concerns or does it simply find 

friendly reviewers who will rubberstamp its agenda? 

Mr. MILITO. Well, I—— 

Mr. PALMER. That’s a loaded question but I’d like for you to give 

me your opinion 

Mr. MILITO. Well, you know, I would like to say that the process 

that we’re going through with EPA is actually better in many respects than what we’re seeing with the Bureau of Land Management. We have meetings with EPA. We talk about them. We talk 

about our technology so there’s a lot of back-and-forth so I would 

commend them for that. And they’re going through a process for 

understanding what the data is before they move forward with potential regulations on existing sources. 
79 

On the other side of the house, we have Bureau of Land Management putting forward regulations for existing sources on federal 

lands without the benefit of all that data and all that knowledge. 

So the preferred path, if you’re going to have a path, is to go 

through and have an analysis of the data before you move forward 

and try to rush regs through. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, despite all the voluntary reductions and, as 

Mr. Weinstein pointed out, we continue to have reductions in methane emissions despite the fact that gas production has gone up tremendously. It kind of comes across like the government is selectively focusing on your industry, ignoring the benefits. 

You know, it’s such a contradiction here that they’re concerned 

about greenhouse gas emissions and they force the coal industry 

basically to go bankrupt, as promised by our President when he 

was campaigning the first time. They’ve destroyed thousands and 

thousands of jobs. They’ve forced power companies to convert from 

coal to natural gas. And even though natural gas prices have come 

way down, energy costs have gone up. 

It just concerns me that there is not a balanced approach to this 

in regard to looking at the economic benefits and the benefits in 

terms of reduction of greenhouse gases versus the benefits—versus 

whatever very limited impact that methane might have. It just— 

it appears to me there’s another agenda here. 

I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gosh, I don’t know who 

to direct this to. I’ll just make a comment. On Ecology.com they 

made the statement that fossil fuels were—I just kind of read their 

statement. It looks like they’re not—don’t have a big problem with 

them, but the problem with them was they weren’t renewable and 

that one day we would run out of them. 

Now, it may interest you to know that that article was written 

by Eric McLamb on September the 6th, 2011. So things change. 

You know, it seems like there was a rush to judgment. The EPA 

has decided that fossil fuels are bad, and I keep hearing questions 

from my colleagues over on the other side here, they keep saying, 

well, but it’s a fossil fuel, isn’t it, as if somehow that’s the kiss of 

death, I guess. 

Mr. Milito, EPA issued five technical white papers covering compressors, emissions from well completions, leaks, liquids unloading, 

and controllers and pumps. Did the EPA properly take into account 

concerns that were raised by various stakeholders during that supposed peer-review? 

Mr. MILITO. No, the final documents that were—I don’t even 

know if they released five. I think that after taking comment, they 

didn’t make any changes to the document so nothing was incorporated from the public input standpoint. They just stuck with 

the—really the original peer-reviewed documents. 

Mr. WEBER. So it was all an exercise in futility is what it sounds 

like. 

I own an air-conditioning company 34 years. I’ve dealt with EPA 

over refrigerant trade name DuPont Freon issues for a long time. 
80 

When I was in the Texas Legislature, we dealt with licensing regulations, Texas Department of Licensing Regulations, TDLR, on airconditioning contractors. I wanted somebody on the board that actually had experience with air-conditioning or with—whether it 

was refrigerant or whether it was the actual industry, not somebody that had been through school and through class and read the 

books and decided under the tutelage of some professor that their 

job was to regulate greenhouse gases or the evil energy industry. 

Dr. Weinstein, you have a comment? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Well, you make a very, very good point. I think 

the environmental community overall is trying to tar the oil and 

gas industry as being evil like the tobacco industry. As we sit here 

today, there was a demonstration going on in front of the White 

House by the Keep It in The Ground movement, and this movement is growing. 

So there’s so much misinformation about energy, fossil fuels. Not 

all fossil fuels are created equally. I mean, there are lots of reasons 

that we’re using less coal. 

Mr. WEBER. Actually, they are created equally. They just decay 

at different levels. Go ahead. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. Well, that’s one way to look at it. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. But—yes, so the political environment in which 

regulation is being crafted today is very highly charged, and unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a middle ground or a rule of reason. There’s this growing perception that fossil fuels are bad. The 

environmental community used to think that, oh, natural gas, 

that’s a great bridge to the future. Now, they say it’s a bridge to 

nowhere. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, it’s a fossil fuel—— 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. But—— 

Mr. WEBER. —as if that’s something bad. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. But the reality is the Department of Energy says 

that fossil fuels are going to remain our primary energy source for 

the next 40 or 50 years, and that’s good news. 

Mr. WEBER. And, Dr. Weinstein, we have how many years of natural gas by some estimates—— 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. That—— 

Mr. WEBER. —1 or 200 years? 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. That changes by the day. I mean—— 

Mr. WEBER. Right. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. —there was a discovery—— 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. —just a couple of days ago in West Texas, you 

know the High Alpine—— 

Mr. WEBER. Absolutely. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. —this huge, you know, billions and billions—— 

Mr. WEBER. Eight billion, right. 

Dr. WEINSTEIN. —of cubic feet of natural gas—— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, the article I cited from Ecology.com we’re going 

to run out of natural gas—this is September the 6th, 2011, clearly 

before the—Mr. Milito, you also said—I missed the numbers in 

your earlier testimony—that one billion cf of natural gas produces 

how many jobs? You quoted—— 
81 

Mr. MILITO. One billion, Bcf per day of natural gas equates to approximately 32,000 jobs. 

Mr. WEBER. Thirty-two thousand jobs. One of the things I say 

when I speak to groups around the country is that the things that 

make America great are the things that America makes. Now, how 

do we do that? We have a reliable, affordable, dependable, clean 

source of energy for the most part. I get there’s problems where the 

pipelines rupture and you were talking about PHMSA earlier, and 

of course you know the pipeline industry, Mr. Milito, has a 99 percent safety rating. 

And so for this idea to be that somehow we’ve got to kill all this 

fossil fuel energy and go on either solar or wind—and that’s not 

even discounting for nuclear that I used to have in my district 

when I was in the State Legislature—it just boggles my imagination that we’ve got an agency that we have reduced their budget 

to—by $420 million into pre-1989 levels and they’re still pumping 

out regulations, as you pointed out, with a supposed comment period. They’re still pumping out regulations at a record rate. 

I think we need some cooler heads to prevail, and I think we 

need some logic to prevail. You know, the EPA is supposed to take 

into account the effects on what it does to the industry before they 

issue regulations, and we really quite frankly don’t see them doing 

that, and I hope that Congress exercises its oversight control and 

gets that under control. And I appreciate you all being here to testify. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ventello, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, excessive heat is the leading cause of preventable 

weather-related deaths each year, particularly among the elderly. 

In June of 2013, President Obama in a ‘‘New York Daily News’’ editorial stated that ‘‘The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. 

It’s lowering many families’ heat and power bills.’’ Do you find it 

ironic that these deaths from excessive heat could be prevented by 

electricity—cheap, reliable natural gas from Pennsylvania or even 

New York instead of lowering electricity usage that has been encouraged by Governor Cuomo? 

Mr. VENTELLO. Yes, it is ironic. We—with the surge of the—of 

this cheap fuel, obviously the industry itself—energy generation is 

probably the most prolific if you will development with natural gas 

that reaches more people than any other single use of natural gas. 

We all use electricity. So to answer your point, yes. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And then do you think citizens have been misinformed by the media and certain advocacy groups about natural 

gas well operations? 

Mr. VENTELLO. Yes, I believe so. And let me give you a—just a 

simple example. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

Mr. VENTELLO. Our Emergency Operations Director if a—for instance, if a tanker of diesel fuel spills delivering fuel to a family 

farm, that’s one day’s news. If a vehicle or some sort of an accident 
82 

happens with a gas-related vehicle, he gets a call from the media 

looking for that separation. That becomes news in the New York 

Times. I see it all the time. People send me that information. So 

yes, there is a strong misinformation. 

I think the best thing—the most powerful thing I can do is ask 

people to come there and see it and make up their own minds. 

Mr. BABIN. Do you think that these advocacy groups are aware 

of the progress that has been made in this industry on reducing 

methane emissions? 

Mr. VENTELLO. I think that they—in many cases they may be 

but there’s nothing you can say that will convince them to change 

their minds. 

Mr. BABIN. I got you. And then how would poorly thought-out, 

hasty regulations stop economic revitalization and development 

that has been occurring in northeast Pennsylvania? 

Mr. VENTELLO. Simply by placing unnecessarily—unnecessary 

burden by additional costs on the industry, which is already moving in the right direction. 

Mr. BABIN. And then would it be fair to say that the production 

of natural gas has benefited the entire community such as the 

building of new hospitals, thus improving the health quality of all 

residents of northeast Pennsylvania? 

Mr. VENTELLO. Yes, and beyond that. Everything that you and 

I use, the industry uses, and there’s been an extreme—in many 

cases where the industry has made—been made to pay impact fees, 

those dollars have gone back into a lot of different benefits to the 

general community—— 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Mr. VENTELLO. —both in health care, as well as housing and the 

like. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ventello, and I appreciate 

all the witnesses today. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. We’re coming to the end of this hearing. 

Mr. Milito, did you want to—I’ll give you about a minute if—— 

Mr. MILITO. Yes, I have a correction—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And then just—— 

Mr. MILITO. —for Congresswoman Edwards. I’m actually looking 

at our regulatory impact analysis, and we did in fact look at the 

benefits of reducing methane emissions. And in one case there are 

actually—our estimates show that they were greater than what the 

government showed, but at the same time we saw the cost appreciably higher, which gives you a much lower net benefit overall. 

And I would look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change which states that greenhouse gas emissions from energy 

supply can be reduced significantly by shifting to modern, highly 

efficient natural gas combined cycle power plants. 

So we have the data which shows that we’re in a good position 

and it just begs the question as to whether or not these regs are 

required. 

And the last thing I would ask is to get some confirmation from 

the EDF because it’s news to me that it’s one percent. All the studies that we’ve seen show you have to be lower than 2.7 to 3.2 percent when it comes to coal. I understand that natural gas in trans-
83 

portation might have a different threshold, but I think we have to 

get that information correct, so I think it would be good for all of 

us to learn that because that’s good information to know. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Holstein, would you like to take a 

minute to respond to that? 

Mr. HOLSTEIN. Yes, just to commit to Mr. Milito that we’d be 

happy to provide it. And we do note two things that have been referenced. One is that we absolutely do accept and acknowledge the 

positive role that natural gas has played in helping to improve, for 

example, our air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

again, underscoring this point that getting a handle on methane 

how—is critical to ensuring that the benefits of gas truly do accrue 

to the society, to the world at large. 

Whether you’re concerned about health benefits or climate or 

both, and the voluntary reductions, are—talking about those are a 

mixed bag. The green completions that Mr. Milito referred to and 

some of the other reductions—reduction-driving measures that 

have been taken by industry have been taken as a direct result of 

earlier EPA regulations. 

That’s not to say that there aren’t good environmental values in 

the industry. I mentioned Colorado where they certainly came to 

the fore. And ONE Future is a good example, but ONE Future’s 

membership is now part of EPA’s challenge—Methane Challenge 

voluntary program, but there are only 10 companies participating 

and we need a lot more leadership and participation from the industry. And I hope Mr. Milito is right that the industry is headed 

in that direction. 

But we also need, because of some of the complexities of measuring, of detecting and responding to methane emissions, we do 

need to have comprehensive methane detection, leak detection and 

repair programs in order to really ensure that the industry has the 

information they need so when this invisible gas is leaking, people 

know where it is. 

I should note in reference to that list of things like controllers 

and valves and that sort of thing, many of these components that 

we’ve talked about were designed to leak back when nobody 

thought—gave a thought about methane. They were actually designed to be driven by the pressures in the gas line. So those are 

examples of things that are easily fixable but we need to get on top 

of it. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Ms. Bonamici, you had something? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman—yes. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted 

to note that I was asking about public health benefits, but I’m 

going to submit a question for the record along with a statement 

from nurses and physicians about the public health—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Absolutely. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —costs. So thank you very much for that. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. You bet. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Do you have something final? 

Ms. BONAMICI. No. That—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —was Ms. Edwards. 
84 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I’d like to thank the witnesses for 

their valuable testimony and Members for their questions. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions from Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(85) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
86 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Erik Milito 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Responses by Mr. Elgie Holstein 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 

(99) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
100 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHSNON
101 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY PALMER
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE EDWARDS
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BONAMICI
119 
120 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 

Æ