Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting ofGreenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart WMeeting Documentation: AmericanGas Association (AGA) 5/6/10DateStaff ContactInformation (Name,email, phone #)Name ofOrganization(Attach list of allattendees namesand emails ifpossible)Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability,reporting requirements, etc.)WrittenCommentsProvided?Did theyalso submitto Docket?Date sent toEPA- CCD5/6/10Roger FernandezAkachi ImegwuKate CardamoneSandy Seastream, ICFGregory JonesAGL ResourcesDanny SmithAlabama GasCorporationIqbal JavedAlliant EnergyCorporationDick CotyAmerenGene EagleAmerenBill BurnettAmerenPam LaceyAmerican GasAssociationVictoria PlotkinAmerican GasAssociationStuart SchulzAtmos EnergyRob BennettSee following pagesNo writtencommentswere submittedprior to themeeting, seebelowAtmos EnergyRobert GieseBaltimore Gas &ElectricJoe JenkinsBlack Hills Corp.Glenn MillerCenterPoint EnergyDave WestmanCon EdisonAmy KapugaConsumers EnergyLisa MoernerDominionAmanda TornabeneDominionDavid JacobsonDTE EnergyGregory RyanDTE EnergyDarrell GrassmyerDTE EnergyLeon T HinsonEntergy NewOrleans, IncKeith FaretraFaretraKristine CruzGas TechnologyInstituteJim McCarthyIES IncJuan SantiagoIntegrysLisa SchmidtIntegrys EnergyGroupRoger McCambridgeIntegrys EnergyGroupRick KottemannLaclede GasCompanySteve DonatielloLaclede GasCompanyMichael RicciardiMadison Gas andElectric Co.Lindsay LyleMinnesota EnergyResourcesAlan HobbsMobile Gas ServiceAbbie KrebsbachMontana-DakotaUtilities Co.Charles BurkeNational FuelRobert LeoneNational FuelKenneth GosselNational Fuel GasDistributionCorporationSandy TaftNational GridCurtis WinnerNew Mexico GasCompanyMarcelle FiedlerNew Mexico GasCompanySomali TomczakNicor GasGhani BaigNiSourceTracy GionfriddoNortheast UtilitiesJeff PaysonNW NaturalLoretta EarnestONEOK, Inc.Linus FariasPacific Gas &ElectricMike JonesPhiladelphia GasWorksMichael DePalmaPiedmont NaturalGasElisabeth BarrSemco Energy GasCompanyJohn FooksSempra EnergyUtilitiesDarrell JohnsonSempra EnergyUtilitiesHayden TruscottSourceGasCharles WaitSouthern UnionBill SchrandSouthwest GasBrianne MetzgerDoranSpectra EnergyTerri ShiresURS CorporationMatthew HarrisonURS CorporationElizabeth BeckVectrenLisa MessingerVectrenDavid HodgesVectrenAlex IzadpanahWashington GasDonna DanihelWe EnergiesPaul KharoufWe EnergiesMichael MillerXcel EnergyJudith H HermanXcel EnergyAGA Meeting with EPAPart 98 Subpart WGHG Reporting Proposed RuleMay 6 2010May6,2010OverviewPam Lacey - AGA• Build on AGA’s excellent relationship and experience gained inEPA Natural Gas STAR program•But cautionexperience from individual Gas STAR projects not–necessarily representative – lots of variation out there• Short timeline for the rule and difficulties involved insurveying thousands of facilities with scarce optical scanningdevices will create problems for both industry and theagency:–cannot ensure reasonable assurance of compliance–EPA will not be able to meet the criteria for “practicalenforcement”ld l k l ’ l d d f• We wouldlike to explore EPA’s realneeds andsee ifwe canhelp suggest practical ways to achieve the agency’s goals.1I. Why Exclude Transmission ...... But Not Distribution Pipes?•Logic for Excluding Transmission Lines also Applies toDistribution and Storage–Processes and procedures in place to address leaks expeditiously–Dispersed facilities – also true of many LDC facilities–Transmission lines are under high pressure and therefore leaks aremore obvious and would be addressed quickly.L k lik l t b dd di kl i di t ib ti•Leakslikelytobeaddressedmorequicklyindistribution–LDCs have extensive leak management programs to avoid, detectand address leaks quickly - DOT PHMSA & PUCs regulate andrequire more for LDCs than for pipelines–Odorization – The nose knows – 65 million customers – they willcall right away–LNG and underground storage – just like transmission lines -- areunder high pressure and the operator quickly becomes aware whena leak appears. Plus, often in odorized2II. AGA Survey Results – Victoria Plotkin (AGA)• LDCs have, on average, roughly 19,000 M&R stations per LDC• Wide variety among companies•Confusion about the definition of M&R• Does it include industrial, commercial and/or residentialmeters?•M&R stations per company–survey results vary from 4 to over500,000 – depending on what one includes• LDCs operate, on average, 60 city gate stations per company•Some companies operate their own city gates• Others say all city gate stations operated by the interstatetransmission company•Some LDCs operate over 270 city gate stations• Most keep inventories of installed components such asregulators and meters, but not the other components requiredin theproposed rulep3III. Emission FactorsJim McCarthy (IES)Emission factors are outdated•Brief history of GRI emission factors• AGA’s Guidelines for carbon footprint for LDCs• Status and timeline of field testing and work to developupdated emission factors – AGA, EPA, GTI OTD4IV. Annual Leak Detection – Bill Schrand (SW Gas)•Proposed Annual Leak Detection at M&R Stations UsingOptical Gas Scanners and Application of Emission Factorsppfor “Leakers”–Inaccurate, Costly, Burdensome and Duplicative• LDCs already conduct annual leak surveys as required byPHMSA• Outline PHMSA requirements5Existing Leak Management•Customers–Most distribution systems are located within populated areas–Odor added to natural gas is easily recognized–Customers notice gas odor and call to report - provides intensemonitoring–Lower pressures associated with most distribution pipe minimizesgas lossExisting Leak Management•Emergency Plan required by DOT–Must be kept up to date–Report status of significant leaksto DOT required within 2 hours ofleak notification–Most leaks repaired within 2 hours of being reported–Southwest Gas averages one hour response timeExisting Leak Management•Leak Survey Procedures required by DOT–Must meet DOT and PUC requirements–Procedures and records audited annually by PUCs–Federal standards for inspection frequency–States may have more stringent requirements, based on numberof leaks foundS i d i ll d l k–Sensor equipment usedsystematically todetectleaks–Leaks graded according to hazard level and repaired within aspecified timeframeExisting Leak Management•Distribution Integrity Management Plans (DIMP)–To be fully implemented in August 2011–Intended to further reduce hazards associated with leaks–Evaluation based, in part, on leak history and leak rate–Repairs based on risk determinationsOptical Scanning vs. Current Leak Detection• EPA’s proposal exceeds even the most extensive GHGinventories performed by LDCs to date – SW Gas example•Cheaper methods (soap solution and wand) are more reliableand accurate than optical scanners, which are sensitive to windand weather conditions and often miss leaks that are found bythe low tech method• There are not enough optical scanners or people trained to usethem – regardless of whether the LDC purchases the equipmentor hires outside consultants• There are many thousands of above ground M&R stations –especially if EPA intends to include not just city gates anddistrict M&R but also industrial and commercial customer M&R(basically customer meters) – EPA incorrectly assumes thatthere are only a few to be surveyed each year• It takes longer to use an optical scanner than EPA assumesp10T bl F F iti V t dFugitive Vented SourcesDue Date:August 19, 2005District/Office NameC &TableF-FugitiveVentedInformation RequestReportingYear 2004Contact Name&Phone numberDirect Emissions - FugitivesSource IDDistrict/ Plant/ Facility/Business Unit Equipment Type (Examples Provided below)Length ofPipeline (km)Number ofStationsNumber ofdevicesCalculated CO2(Short Tons)F-1 Customer MetersF-2 Distribution Main Pipeline Length (Cast Iron)F-3Distribution Main Pipeline Length (Plastic)F-4 Distribution Main Pipeline Length (Protected Steel)F-5 Distribution Main Pipeline Length (Unprotected Steel)F-6 Distribution Services Length (Copper)F-7Distribution Services Length (Plastic)F-8 Distribution Services Length (Protected Steel)F-9 Distribution Services Length (Unprotected Steel)F 10Di t ib ti Ri-DistributionRisersF-11Distribution Reg StationF-12 Transmission Pipeline Length (Cast Iron)F-13 Transmission Pipeline Length (Plastic)F-14 Transmission Pipeline Length (Protected Steel)F-15 Transmission Pipeline Length (Unprotected Steel)F-16Compressor StationsF-17Other Equipment??? (separators holding tanks etc )OtherEquipment???(separators,holdingtanks,etc.)F-18F-19F-20Emissions SummaryT t l COSource TypeTotalCO2e(percent of total)Stationary & Indirect1.5%Stationary&IndirectMobile Equipment 8.5%Fugitive & Vented 90%Regulator stations 32%Residential andcommercial meters 17%Distribution mains 30%Dig Ins 8%Blow Downs 3%Grand Total 100.00%Emissions by Customer TypeBased on Distributed GasType of CustomerNumber ofCustomersGasDeliveredPercentage AverageCO2(Decatherms)Emissions(tons)Custom. ThermsResidential 1,727,790 70,498,626 95.586% 32.263% 2.4Small Commercial 77,633 31,455,475 4.295% 14.395% 23.7Compressed Gas 166 370,899 0.009% 0.170% 130.7I i ti3791 323 8940 021%0 606%204 3rrgation1,323,894...Large Commercial 896 10,817,354 0.050% 4.950% 706.3Small Industry254 4,118,3530.14%1.885%948.5a dust y8,3530 %85Essential Agriculture 82 713,821 0.005% 0.327% 509.3Procurement Sales 20 4,937,975 0.001% 2.260% 14,443.6Transported 365 94,274,100 0.020% 43.144% 15,109.7Total 1,807,585 218,510,497Subpart NN -Suppliers of Natural Gas2008 N t l G D li i t C t2008NaturalGasDeliveriestoCustomers<25,000 mt< 4,600,000 ThermsReport NG Deliveries>25,000 mt> 4,600,000 ThermsSelfReportinpgCustomer Class Therms Customers Therms CustomersResidential 704,986,220 1,727,790 0 0Commercial 422,728,290 78,529 0 0Industrial 41,183,510 254 0 0Compressed Natural Gas 3,708990 166 0 0,Irrigation/Water Pumping 13,238,930 379 0 0Essential Agriculture 7,138,210 82 0 0P tG S l154 309049 016 6217ProcurementGasSales154,30949,016,621Other Gas Sales 208,820 13 0 0Transportation 170,550,000 337 772,191,000 28Total 1,363,897,279 1,807,550 821,207,621 35This information has already been provided to:Clark Co., NV; Henderson, NV; Maricopa Co., AZ; San Bernardino Co., CATotal Emissionsfrom SWG ActivitiesSourceTons%SWG Operations1 694 97111 7SWGOperations1,694,971.Customers<25,000 tons7,978,79948.225,000tons7,978,799Customers >25,000 tons 4,804,065 40.1Total 14,477,834Direct MeasurementM&R StationsField test observations:•Extremely difficult to detect small leaksR lt l i f ti l•Results were onlyinferential•Use of wands were more effective•Quantification byhigh-volume samplersg•Excessive cost for little technical valueExamples of M&R and City Gates –Wide Variety21SGTC City GateLaughlin, NVInlet MAOP 1008 psigOutlet pressure 730 psigGasline Road City GateVictorville,CAInlet MAOP 936 psigInletMAOP936psigOutlet pressure 240 psigCity GateWillow Valley, NVInlet MAOP 100 psigOutlet pressure 60 psigGypsum Plant M&RLas Vegas, NVConvention Center M&RLas Vegas, NVAPEX Industrial M&R StationLas Vegas, NVSmall Commercial M&R Station• Photos of componentsCouplingsCouplingsPlug ValveSmall Commercial M&RFast Food RestaurantCommercial M&RBig Box StoreCommercial M&RMedium Box StoreCommercial M&RAnother Medium Box StoreLarge Commercial M&RLarge Commercial M&RCommercial M&ROffice Building Back Up GenerationCommercial M&RLarge Office BuildingCost of Leak Detection & Optical Scanning•Not clear what type of optical gas scanning equipmentwould be required•Could affect the cost significantly–FLIR camera/ Optical Imaging Device? Cost around $80,000 to$100,000 each to purchase – around $2,500 per week to rent–Mobile or Remote Methane Leak Detector (RMLD)?Costaround $30,000–Vehicle-Mounted Methane Leak Detector?Cost around$16,000-18,000 each–Remote hand-held optical methane detectors?Cost around$8,000 each.40Experience with FLIRPeter Ford (New Mexico Gas)• FLIR cameracannotscan hundreds of source types quickly –contrary to EPA’s assertion in Subpart W proposal• The FLIR did not find any leaks we could not find already byjust looking for dirty pipe or using soap solution• And itmissedthe smaller leaks that we found using othermethods41Cost Considerations - M&R Surveys• Around $40 per ton of CO2e just to estimate (not reduce)emissions at M&R stations under the proposal•AGA survey results indicate each company would need to scanseveral thousand M&R stations• Company that recently did a test run found they could only visitand perform the scan at <10 M&R stations per day per scanner• Each company would need over 100 scanners and trainedoperators to perform annual survey within a two month periodat the average 19 000 M&R stations per companyat the average 19,000 M&R stations per company• A substantial portion of the expected costs would be avoided ifM&R stations were removed from the rule – or at least if theterm were defined to clearly exclude industrial commercial andterm were defined to clearly exclude industrial,commercial andresidential customer metering42Big Picture – Danny Smith (Alagasco)•What are your goals?•Are EPA’s goals already served by existing regulations?•Is your goal to generate methane emissions data to allow forcalculating the lifecycle GHG emissions for using natural gas orother energy sources?• AGA supports usinglifecycle analysis for calculatingenergyg y y g gyefficiency and GHG emissions• Better way to achieve that goal--–LDCs already report mileage ofmains and services to DOT–EPA creates the annual GHG Inventory applying available emissionfactors for bare steel, plastic andcast iron pipe to that mileage–Subpart W would just duplicate that effort for mains and pipesh j h ii Od d•Why notjust use the existing DOTdata andEPAGreenhouse Gas Inventory?•And use updated emission factors when available.43Additional Concerns•Request clarification – distribution vs. transmission-PGE–The proposal does not specifywhere to draw the line betweendistribution and transmission operations–Many members operate both distribution and transmission linesand will need additional clarifications to determine what portions ofoperations are proposed to be included.•Need definition of “connector”•Does EPA really need the count for such small fittings?44Questions & Comments• AGA member company representatives on the phone andwebinar link may pose questions to EPA or make additionalcomments• “Raise Your Hand” in Chat Area – and post short note in chatarea regarding your topic• When Pam Lacey calls on you, press *6 to un-mute your phoneand ask your question•When you are done, press*6 to mute your phone againWhen you are done, press 6 to mute your phone again45Conclusion• Postpone Subpart W applicability to Distribution until updateemission factors, then see what makes sense• In alternative, use existingGHG Inventoryfor distributionpipesy ppand phase in requirements for M&R and city gates–Use existing best practices in 2012–Phase in additional requirements in 2015–Reduce number of components–Define M&R to exclude industrial, commercial and residentialcustomer metering and regulatingD i t f i f d d ll f i ti•Droprequirement forinfraredcamerasandallowuseofexistingleak surveys as required by PHMSA and utility commissions–or at least define what types ofequipment you have in mind andallow the use of alternative methods in use no–such as soapsolution and wands• Do what makes sense and will allow for compliance assurance46THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIMEPamela LaceySenior Managing Counsel, Environmentplacey@aga.org